W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > March 2018

Re: Getting rid of SDP (relation to ORTC)

From: Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 23:40:10 +0100
To: WebRTC WG <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <65a7edc3-fdc2-611a-b681-b2fb1bab6e44@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> 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. 
> 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. 

Fair enough. Having read Peter's and Sergio's answers as well, it seems
using ORTC as a starting point is a good idea and extending it with more
fine granular control or entirely new "building blocks" (objects).

Peter, can you send me a link to the SLICE spec/slides?
(https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-ice does look way too high level to me)

Received on Monday, 5 March 2018 22:40:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:39 UTC