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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 10/18/11 14:20, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/10/18 Iñaki Baz Castillo<[e-mail]>:
>> 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