W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > June 2013

Re: SDP wrapper? Object-oriented API?

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:58:04 -0400
Message-ID: <51C1C6FC.1000807@bbs.darktech.org>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
CC: piranna@gmail.com, Frédéric Luart <frederic.luart@apizee.com>, public-webrtc@w3.org, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>

     That's fine and well but you've got to start somewhere. What's the 
harm in collecting use-cases and building an API on top of SDP for now? 
Even if you're right, it's hard to convince people to make such a large 
leap at once. Let's see what this API ends up looking like, and we can 
then revisit the idea of taking it to a higher level.

     Long term, you will need to come up with a *concrete* proposal for 
an API that works for signaling protocols that require Offer/Answer and 
yet doesn't expose those details to end-users. Like I said, let's start 
small and build up to these goals.

Gili

On 19/06/2013 10:50 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>
> Vendors can use SDP with a JS libary on top of WebRTC, without forcing 
> other users to deal with SDP or a JS API for dealing with SDP, and 
> without forcing others to use the SDP O/A model (which is fully 
> relevant since not all the media signaling protocols need O/A 
> semantigs). But those are not the only issues with SDP. The mails I've 
> referenced show many other limitations and constrains SDP usage forces.
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>
> El 19/06/2013 16:45, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org 
> <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> escribió:
>
>
>         Disregarding the whole section about replacing Offer/Answer
>     since I believe it is out of scope for this discussion, are you
>     asking for a Javascript API that interacts directly with WebRTC
>     without having to pass through a blob/opaque-token? I agree the
>     latter is not ideal, but at the end of the day what's the big
>     deal? If vendors want SDP and end-users want a Javascript API,
>     agreeing to a blob is a decent compromise.
>
>     Gili
>
>     On 19/06/2013 10:36 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>
>>     Just this:
>>     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07895.html
>>
>>     --
>>     Iñaki Baz Castillo
>>     <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>>
>>     El 19/06/2013 16:35, "Iñaki Baz Castillo" <ibc@aliax.net
>>     <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>> escribió:
>>
>>         Please re-read again. Nobody in that thread is requesting an
>>         API for managing an opaque string. ;)
>>
>>         --
>>         Iñaki Baz Castillo
>>         <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>>
>>         El 19/06/2013 16:33, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org
>>         <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> escribió:
>>
>>
>>                 So having read most of this discussion I'm a bit
>>             puzzled. Aren't we proposing the same thing? I believe
>>             we're both saying that vendors should be free to use
>>             whatever format they want under the hood (SDP or
>>             otherwise) but that users should be given a Javascript
>>             API for querying and manipulating this opaque token. Did
>>             I misunderstand?
>>
>>             Gili
>>
>>             On 19/06/2013 10:12 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>>
>>>             Offer / Answer.
>>>
>>>             --
>>>             Iñaki Baz Castillo
>>>             <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>>>
>>>             El 19/06/2013 16:11, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org
>>>             <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>> escribió:
>>>
>>>                 On 19/06/2013 9:42 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>>
>>>                     2013/6/19 cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org
>>>                     <mailto:cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>>:
>>>
>>>                             Honestly, I think this is the wrong
>>>                             approach/workaround.
>>>
>>>
>>>                              What do you propose instead?
>>>
>>>
>>>                     This:
>>>
>>>                     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07880.html
>>>
>>>                     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07895.html
>>>
>>>                     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07896.html
>>>
>>>                     http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07899.html
>>>
>>>
>>>                     --
>>>                     Iñaki Baz Castillo
>>>                     <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>>>
>>>                 Hi,
>>>
>>>                 With respect to
>>>                 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07895.html
>>>                 what does O/A stand for?
>>>
>>>                 Gili
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 14:58:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:33 UTC