IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> Fri, 21 October 2011 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew.kaufman@skype.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 3AE5621F8AAA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 xLcLKL6sVluL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.skype.net (mx.skype.net [78.141.177.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7249821F8A7E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.skype.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42D61707; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:40:46 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=skype.net; h=subject :references:content-transfer-encoding:from:content-type :in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:cc:mime-version; s=mx; bh=yiSdhC 3XgMs4hGbNhEOm2oh9j+Y=; b=JHyOwzioEimS4LmCCu8YElnxltbjgUeLNyraLL uYXL/uUIjaIjl6sM7UrA+xHzAZKblcQwd9xOk5Jiv0EqArlHr2ZCySwqgk+/68wc zzaiCzRxHSkYouriA0BhUUoFdJD11i7lRzR3BPwT2KO350uERCvzVTAQL7pn2BIA QlOiM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=skype.net; h=subject:references :content-transfer-encoding:from:content-type:in-reply-to :message-id:date:to:cc:mime-version; q=dns; s=mx; b=Q/1OsfiNJ+Wv GXChT6tmKSv6cC42xhMOrA3EJULukT3ZlQwYuDLvqrUYp4KlOt3nb6mnT2gt5GRK KS1f7QtSw2S/+2sP4CMnOGbZnxjNMRn7toVyaaRekLRJ3fGpqkMfTHBqAS1LhF6N Tll9hvu6HTEyveqZhs6/rQDGiS7wkAo=
Received: from zimbra.skype.net (zimbra.skype.net [78.141.177.82]) by mx.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BD77F8; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:40:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881F41672682; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:40:46 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at lu2-zimbra.skype.net
Received: from zimbra.skype.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.skype.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gNWSOi0E4a3X; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:40:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from zimbra.skype.net (lu2-zimbra.skype.net [78.141.177.82]) by zimbra.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D4F3507682; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:40:45 +0200 (CEST)
References: <CALiegf=gbZJgvCEy83FuS4GJ+6O-kU4MBXdPEgdz4ubSt5Y4pw@mail.gmail.com> <F6C22392-95FE-4CB2-836A-5DF1B5143F8B@acmepacket.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-23--538248085"
In-Reply-To: <F6C22392-95FE-4CB2-836A-5DF1B5143F8B@acmepacket.com>
Message-Id: <F62F8DFA-FCA5-4B75-B093-3BF9B639E6A8@skype.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:40:45 +0200
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.9_GA_2686 (MobileSync - Apple-iPad2C2/812.1)
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: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 17:41:00 -0000


On Oct 21, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> wrote:

> 
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 
> 
> Well since the Browser will never know whether ROAP is really to another Browser vs. the Javascript, then yes it could be used that way. (it will probably be painful, but possible)
> 

I agree, and have pointed this out in previous discussions.

I'd just like the painful part to be as little pain as we can possibly achieve, because this is exactly how I intend to use it.



Matthew Kaufman

Sent from my iPad, on a plane

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email