Re: [rtcweb] Does ROAP mandate the on-the-wire format?

It's the question whether we see 'SDP' as browser-to-browser or as
browser-to-server communication. If it was strictly
browser-to-browser, W3C could define a blob format that just needs
some transport, like ROAP. If we have interconnection, we have to do
protocol translation and know the blob's format on some server. In
this case, SDP is a good choice as we can avoid translating this
format most of the time. Let's hope your implementation will not choke
on SDPs like this one:
http://osdir.com/ml/ietf.mmusic/2006-05/msg00045.html

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:
> 2011/10/30 Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>:
>> Let's say the RTCWeb API passed JSON objects like the ones in ROAP in and out of the PeerConnection object. (I will be arguing that is one thing we should consider).  At that oping you could write the SIP over webesockets in JS in the browsers. You might even find some useful info on how to do the mapping in draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling-gateway-01
>>
>> I think there has been a lot of talking past each other on this. In some cases ROAP over webesockets might be a protocol used to speak directly to a ROAP to SIP signaling GW. So I view ROAP over a well defined transport to be a on the wire protocol but certainly not the only on the wire protocol. Just one that some systems could use.
>>
>> On the other hand, if one does SIP in JS (or the browser), that works too.
>>
>> Hope that helps clarify.
>
> Sure, thanks a lot.
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>