Re: [rtcweb] Low Level Javascript API Proposal avail on the webrtc list

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Fri, 30 September 2011 19:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A3D21F8AD8 for <>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.636
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VhqEPg1+lhC2 for <>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3002921F8B13 for <>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so2328982vcb.31 for <>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id a11mr10545545vdj.313.1317411987612; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:46:27 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Low Level Javascript API Proposal avail on the webrtc list
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:43:33 -0000

2011/9/28 Tim Panton <>:
> I just want to ask folks to take a look at a proposal Neil Stratford wrote for the
> Low Level Javascript API and sent to the webrtc list.
> It  is based on his and my experience of web based audio plugins and on a
> proposal of Cullen's a while back.
> We'd appreciate any feedback either here or on the webrtc list as appropriate.

Hi, the API in that document is just valid for a few specific
scenarios (make a call, receive a call and maybe putting a session on
hold). That is a very limited subset of what any VoIP protocol can
offer, so I don't think it's a good idea for rtcweb to assume a custom
protocol like that for inclusion in WebRTC JS API (as native JS code
within the browser).

Of course, a simple API like that would be useful for lot of people
offering basic media services to the web site users (basic scenarios
in which there is no call transfer, parallel forking and so).


Iñaki Baz Castillo