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

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 18 October 2011 12:40 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 4A86221F8B21 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.43
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 A+LZuurwsAmA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9D821F8A58 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC1339E151; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:39:59 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a8ts154sN029; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:39:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (62-20-124-50.customer.telia.com [62.20.124.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2124D39E082; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:39:59 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E9D739E.6020906@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:39:58 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?ScOxYWtpIEJheiBDYXN0aWxsbw==?= <ibc@aliax.net>
References: <4E9D667A.2040703@alvestrand.no> <CALiegfmSR-_-swh_YiV9jH9V2iOpkjwhoJAdVwT0phkWbnCHZg@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfni2AWJTVsvD-dDxEivLr1w=i5cPs7_4wptoz+Xi1SC=Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfni2AWJTVsvD-dDxEivLr1w=i5cPs7_4wptoz+Xi1SC=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 12:40:01 -0000

On 10/18/11 14:20, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/10/18 Iñaki Baz Castillo<ibc@aliax.net>;:
>> I use SIP over WebSocket, I just need RTCweb API's to be defined. Does
>> your proposal mean that I won't be able to use SIP over WebSocket and
>> instead I must use some specific protocol between the JS client and
>> the server? I hope the answer is not...
> After re-reading your mail, I'm less afraid:
>
> -----------------
> “We shouldn’t mandate a new protocol on the wire”.
>
> We’re not. We’re specifying one, and mandating it for a specific
> point: The browser/JS interface.
>
> We can have applications that parse it locally using a JS library; in
> that case, the protocol runs between the browser and the local JS
> application.
>
> We can have applications that pass the blobs to a server for
> gatewaying into something else; in that case, the protocol runs
> between the browser and the server.
>
> We can have applications that pass the blobs (possibly via a very
> simple server) to another browser, unchanged; in that case, the
> protocol runs between the two browsers.
> -----------------
>
> So line 3 allows me to sleep tonigh :)
>
> However, I don't fully understand why ROAP is not enough. ¿Does not it
> specify the *signaling* communication between the JS and the browser
> (RTCweb stack)?
>
To be clear: I believe that ROAP is a good candidate specification for 
the "blob protocol".
I support the ROAP approach; in this note, I'm trying to lay out my 
thinking for why I support it.

                Harald