IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 31 October 2011 09:44 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 24ADC21F8C80 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 02:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.644
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, 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 fEiW5QThM3BM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 02:44:56 -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 9FBE721F8C63 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 02:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so5554546vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 02:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.150.81 with SMTP id x17mr2381884vcv.233.1320054296083; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 02:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.184.6 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 02:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BACB56B1-B36B-46DE-A80B-73A8243716E0@cisco.com>
References: <CALiegf=gbZJgvCEy83FuS4GJ+6O-kU4MBXdPEgdz4ubSt5Y4pw@mail.gmail.com> <F6C22392-95FE-4CB2-836A-5DF1B5143F8B@acmepacket.com> <CALiegfnTJVJTnNy-V_UrQtzAptQ1LUhCyaZFvsAr-L39ePBFGw@mail.gmail.com> <BACB56B1-B36B-46DE-A80B-73A8243716E0@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:44:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfk2sR4E852qZ5fF3m7jaBXpwZ0V20a9zqUuehfLfgK=OQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.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: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:44:57 -0000

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>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email