IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Fri, 21 October 2011 16:43 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 0339021F8B07 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, 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 HNwCjcXg138J for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:43:39 -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 014B421F8B04 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so3716909vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.73.166 with SMTP id m6mr15014310vdv.18.1319215413396; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F6C22392-95FE-4CB2-836A-5DF1B5143F8B@acmepacket.com>
References: <CALiegf=gbZJgvCEy83FuS4GJ+6O-kU4MBXdPEgdz4ubSt5Y4pw@mail.gmail.com> <F6C22392-95FE-4CB2-836A-5DF1B5143F8B@acmepacket.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:43:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfnTJVJTnNy-V_UrQtzAptQ1LUhCyaZFvsAr-L39ePBFGw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
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 16:43:40 -0000

2011/10/21 Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>:
> Well since the Browser will never know whether ROAP is really to another Browser vs. the Javascript, then yes it could be used that way. (it will probably be painful, but possible)

The question comes because my wire signaling implementation (SIP over
WebSocket) is that: SIP. So the JS sends and receives pure SIP
messages (with SDP) over the wire.

If ROAP includes a real SDP (as the draft currently states) then I'm
done as I just need to create a ROAP object (in JavaScript) and pass
it the received SDP string (and also set some session status
variables, which can be easily mapped from the received SIP
request/response).

Hope I'm right and I don't have to drop the work of long months.

Regards.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email