Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling - Scope

Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> Thu, 20 October 2011 00:55 UTC

Return-Path: <petithug@acm.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB6121F84DD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.19
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.19 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.410, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qwbswbsR8Tx5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [IPv6:2604:3400:dc1:41:216:3eff:fe5b:8240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C8C111E80B6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:616:213:d4ff:fe04:3e08] (shalmaneser.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:616:213:d4ff:fe04:3e08]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "petithug", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A66C420595; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:47:35 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4E9F7182.5000207@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:55:30 -0700
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20111010 Iceowl/1.0b2 Icedove/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
References: <15B0E3AD-3086-499A-8E79-7AE58B3376C4@cisco.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159957@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfnGfpWooceicAbLQ35oVDUZC6+d=903qSKkxW952i-8pw@mail.gmail.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058522341F416A@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <10704DBF-9400-42BA-B9C5-209C338F042E@cisco.com> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058522341F4A36@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <2F4D4B67-7AE0-4C8F-B390-B043FBA82B76@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <2F4D4B67-7AE0-4C8F-B390-B043FBA82B76@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg <jonathan.rosenberg@skype.net>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling - Scope
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:55:36 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/19/2011 05:43 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 6:21 , Christer Holmberg wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi Cullen,
>> 
>>>> So, while I support and offer/answer based approach, I think we need to
>>>> get a clearer understanding of the scope.
>>> 
>>> My view is this is draft is a set of semantics and syntax that operates
>>> over an abstract transport protocol. In most cases the transport with be
>>> web sockets or HTTP based. If this looks like a reasonable protocol, it
>>> would be likely to influence the W3C API.
>> 
>> As the ROAP state machine is located in the browser, doesn't that already
>> mean that ROAP must to be supported by the API?
> 
> 
> This whole "is this an API or Protocol discussion" leaves me sort of saying
> "Yes" but I'm not sure it matters much. Any API can be turned into a protocol
> using a RPC approach. 

I disagree here.

http://labs.oracle.com/techrep/1994/abstract-29.html

> Most protocol lead to a fairly obvious API to describe
> that protocol. From a category theory point of view, I consider an API the
> dual of a protocol. I know opinions differ but in general, I view API's and
> protocols as surprisingly similar.
> 
> ROAP is a protocol that could be used to things like a gateway that converted
> from ROAP to SIP.  However, it is also a protocol that is designed to work
> well with an API like one that might be used by W3C for WebRTC. If we go down
> this ROAP path, I would expect that the the JSON object that gets represented
> by the string in ROAP would be used to pass in the WebRTC API. The two are
> closely related - and that is intentional.
> 
> I'm trying to make a protocol that closely fits with what the web browsers
> want to implement.
> 

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Professional email: petithug@acm.org
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk6fcYAACgkQ9RoMZyVa61c/HgCgq24f4ukdmxHc1fBZULUS6N2s
49oAnR7EMzKZINs/2za9lI3Dvw1TatuX
=wpEC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----