IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Fri, 21 October 2011 18:12 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 4B69A11E8095 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:12:10 -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 9s-XufVlsJtZ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82C511E8082 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so4300461vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.117.81 with SMTP id p17mr1109243vcq.41.1319220729248; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5E920713-0B41-493D-9457-7FE48DB6A98D@skype.net>
References: <CALiegf=gbZJgvCEy83FuS4GJ+6O-kU4MBXdPEgdz4ubSt5Y4pw@mail.gmail.com> <F6C22392-95FE-4CB2-836A-5DF1B5143F8B@acmepacket.com> <CALiegfnTJVJTnNy-V_UrQtzAptQ1LUhCyaZFvsAr-L39ePBFGw@mail.gmail.com> <5E920713-0B41-493D-9457-7FE48DB6A98D@skype.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:12:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfk7KqAvB0jSzK_U08mvhEFtx63ZGgc9UCTbeef_ZxT7iw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Does ROAP mandate the on-the-wire format?
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: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:12:10 -0000

2011/10/21 Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>:
> If you can do this as easily as it sounds above, and it supports both early media and forking, then I think we've put far too much into the browser logic. So this is actually a good test of the design.
>
> For a browser, there should be no such thing as early media... Just media.

As Hadriel has pointed out, in SIP early media is just a *normal*
media session but without a confirmed INVITE transaction (not a final
response yet, but just 180/183 with SDP). So there is no problem in
implementing early media in the browser.



> And for a browser, there should be no such thing as forking,

Why not? my current implementation can receive different SIP 180/183
with different To-tags, which means "forking".



Regards.


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

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status