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

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

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)?


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>