IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 18 October 2011 18:16 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 5C91321F8ABB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.631
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.046, 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 6UnsAlnNPMPV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:16:06 -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 C8C1D21F858C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so951468vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.35.34 with SMTP id e2mr3713555vdj.52.1318961763497; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E9DBECC.6000206@alvestrand.no>
References: <4E9D667A.2040703@alvestrand.no> <CAAJUQMhUh5XiFh8rpg=Xag_F_Vm5tuVE5yRnArxzcd6sXb-=Kw@mail.gmail.com> <4E9DBECC.6000206@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:16:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmhbNh1cVYty7wsnWLd2ChZ5zm2JF8moKmSf7aRsKFRXg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki 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 18:16:06 -0000

2011/10/18 Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>:
> 2) when there is only one web server, one of the browsers is Firefox and the
> other one is Chrome, the JS needs to have a standard means of communication
> with the browser. This means a standard.
> I have explained in my long note why I think it makes sense to describe this
> as a protocol.

If that just involves communication between the JS and the browser
than IMHO that's an API rather than a protocol.
However, if such signaling between JS and the browser (the RTCweb
stack) mantains state, then I could agree on naming it "protocol".

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.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email