WebRTC JavaScript Object API Rationale
draft-raymond-rtcweb-webrtc-js-obj-api-rationale-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Robin Raymond , Erik Lagerway , Inaki Castillo  , Roman Shpount
Last updated 2013-06-25
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                         R. Raymond
Internet-Draft                                               E. Lagerway
Intended status: Informational                                 Hookflash
Expires: December 28, 2013                               I. Baz Castillo
                                                               Versatica
                                                              R. Shpount
                                                             TurboBridge
                                                           June 26, 2013

                 WebRTC JavaScript Object API Rationale
          draft-raymond-rtcweb-webrtc-js-obj-api-rationale-00

Abstract

   This document describes the reasons why a JavaScript Object API
   approach is a far better solution than using SDP [RFC4566] as a
   surface API for interfacing with WebRTC.  The document outlines the
   issues and pitfalls as well as use cases that are difficult (or
   impossible) with SDP with offer / answer [RFC3264], and explains the
   benefits and goals of an alternative JavaScript Object API approach.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 28, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Raymond, et al.         Expires December 28, 2013               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft   WebRTC JavaScript Object API Rationale        June 2013

   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Issues with a Universal Session Description Format (and Offer
       / Answer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Goal of Minimized Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.2.  Offer / Answer State Machine  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       2.2.1.  Offer / Answer Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.3.  Browser to Browser Format Compatibility Issue . . . . . .   8
     2.4.  Browser to JavaScript Compatibility Issues  . . . . . . .   8
     2.5.  SDP as a surface API for JavaScript developers  . . . . .   8
     2.6.  Is SDP allowed to be mangled? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.7.  SDP errata and bugs compatibility issues  . . . . . . . .  10
       2.7.1.  SDP Bugs Become Enshrined . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.8.  SIP/SDP compatibility worsened  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.9.  Increased surface API . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.10. Impossible API to implement to achieve browser
           compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       2.10.1.  Example Oddities That Need Definition  . . . . . . .  12
     2.11. Plan A, Plan B vs NoPlan  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     2.12. SIP Forking Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   3.  Alternatives to Fixing these Issues Now . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.1.  Waiting for WebRTC 2.0  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       3.1.1.  Cost now to fix versus fixing later . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.1.2.  If starting over, would even SIP people want SDP as a
               surface API?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       3.1.3.  Incremental Approach may make Compatibility Worse . .  15
     3.2.  Session Description Format Construction API . . . . . . .  16
   4.  Example Difficult Usage Cases with Current Model  . . . . . .  18
     4.1.  On / off hold example usage case  . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.2.  One-Sided Constraints Negotiation use Case Scenario . . .  19
     4.3.  Meet-me Negotiation Use Case Scenario . . . . . . . . . .  20
     4.4.  Browser to Browser Compatibility Extension Compatibility
           Issue Scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
Show full document text