- From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 23:31:13 +0100
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <301864af-4b6f-6b72-a8d6-0e83482e7465@gmail.com>
On 05/03/2018 23:20, Cullen Jennings wrote: > >> On Mar 5, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com >> <mailto:lennart.grahl@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> Let's define a low level modular api (that is what most devs want >>> anyway) that could be reused in different scenarios (ICE+DTLS+ICE or >>> quick) easily. >> >> Isn't that what ORTC does provide? > > So ORTC does a good job of what it does, which is get rid of the > syntax of SDP and provide a programmatic interface to an RTP media > stack that is roughly capable of what can be done with SDP > Offer/Answer. As a result, most of ORTC 1:1 maps to the semantics or SDP. Can't agree more. > Take something simple like ptime and maxptime in ORTC. To real > understand what these are and how they fit into RTP, what they do in > an offer/answer, etc, you will be reading SDP documents. The approach > in new-media is to ask if we could get rid of tons of the baggage that > has accumulated in RTP, solve a bunch of the features that are too > hard to do in existing RTP/ICE, and simplify the RTP in a huge way > that allowed us to move to something with far simpler semantics that SDP. I partially agree, we can achieve the same clean sdp-less api without modifying the current media stack. I don't oppose to enhance/change RTP/ICE, but IMHO we should have both discussions independently and in parallel. Best regards Sergio
Received on Monday, 5 March 2018 22:31:34 UTC