Re: [rtcweb] My Opinion: Why I think a negotiating protocol is a Good Thing

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 18 October 2011 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 AD84321F8CA4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.634
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.634 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 tyPRzvjNKvf9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6BA21F8B53 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so800651vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.184.103 with SMTP id et7mr3895014vdc.35.1318963414421; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E9DC57E.3070102@alvestrand.no>
References: <4E9D667A.2040703@alvestrand.no> <CAAJUQMhUh5XiFh8rpg=Xag_F_Vm5tuVE5yRnArxzcd6sXb-=Kw@mail.gmail.com> <4E9DBECC.6000206@alvestrand.no> <CALiegfmhbNh1cVYty7wsnWLd2ChZ5zm2JF8moKmSf7aRsKFRXg@mail.gmail.com> <4E9DC57E.3070102@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:43:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfkGVKXCCKau-pSYkhDVE_VBQ9RXd+tg=4F+AFBq6Y62yA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] My Opinion: Why I think a negotiating protocol is a Good Thing
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:43:35 -0000

2011/10/18 Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>;:
>> Anyhow, the point here is: are you advocating for having a default
>> signaling protocol in-the-wire or not? It's a bit unclear from your
>> first mail given the ammount of signaling fragments in the whole
>> RTCweb picture.
>>
> I'm advocating a single protocol between the Javascript and the Web browser.

Well, so instead of managing a simple JS API you mean a JS API with
memory and state, so let's call it "protocol". Then I strongly think
that what you suggest is the same as ROAP. And I do agree with such
proposal.


> It's a viable option for some applications to run that protocol from one
> browser to the other browser over a mechanism of their choice; many
> applications will make other choices, including those who choose to
> implement SIP in Javascript.

There is a risk here. If the specs and the API are based on that
signaling protocol, maybe they just fullfit the requirements of that
protocol and forget other possible solutions. Just wondering. But
there will be people ensuring that does not happen ;)




-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>;