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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 18 October 2011 12:21 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 C147121F8B43 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.634
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.634 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, 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 ZiuNYuA74l+C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:21:24 -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 7076821F84B8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so513621vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.117.81 with SMTP id p17mr155582vcq.41.1318940450608; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfmSR-_-swh_YiV9jH9V2iOpkjwhoJAdVwT0phkWbnCHZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E9D667A.2040703@alvestrand.no> <CALiegfmSR-_-swh_YiV9jH9V2iOpkjwhoJAdVwT0phkWbnCHZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:20:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfni2AWJTVsvD-dDxEivLr1w=i5cPs7_4wptoz+Xi1SC=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_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 12:21:26 -0000

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)?


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