Re: What is missing for building "real" services?

On 6 Jan 2014, at 09:45, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

> On quite a few of these, coming up with specific proposals that explain:
> 
> - Why it's needed
> - How it could be done
> 
> would greatly increase the chances of something happening.
> It's very nice to ask that "someone do something"; it's much better to actually do it.
> 
> On 01/05/2014 09:59 PM, piranna@gmail.com wrote:
>> I have reminded myself another issues regarding specially to DataChannels:
>> 
>> * It is too much cumbersome to create a DataChannel-only connection and there are too much concepts related to it: SDP, offer, answer, PeerConnection objects, signaling channel (common sense says, if you already has a channel to comunicate between both peers, why you would create another one)... Too much complicated and anti-intuitive.
>> 
> 
> On this aspect, however, I think the answer is "live with it". It's just the way the design is.

Or perhaps 'live with it 'till 2.0' - I can't imagine the SDP mess will survive a major revision of the spec - it is just too clumsy.
It is possible however that some good libraries will surface and cover over the ugliness.
> 

Tim.