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

On 01/06/2014 10:55 AM, Tim Panton new wrote:
>
> On 6 Jan 2014, at 09:45, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no 
> <mailto: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.

I'm looking forward to the proposals being worked out in the ORCA group 
maturing to the point where it's possible to prove that they can be used 
to communicate with 1.0 implementations (or even emulate their API).

The part that I think will survive "forever" is, however, the need to 
have a signalling path in order to start communicating. That's something 
I don't expect to see workarounds for.