Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Thu, 15 September 2011 12:10 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 803A921F893C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 05:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, 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 seM-F+M9O12i for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 05:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3384621F85BB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 05:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk32 with SMTP id 32so4947712qyk.10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 05:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.66.144 with SMTP id n16mr409539qci.178.1316088734929; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 05:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.79.207 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 05:12:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20110915140248.4cc17977@lminiero-acer>
References: <CALiegfnOCxyTo9ffQ272+ncdu5UdgrtDT-dn10BWGTZMEjZoCg@mail.gmail.com> <4E71927C.1090606@skype.net> <CALiegfnEaYVsZpKQOoVtT=2gGCzssX79pxLGo7H2Ez0GcMTG-A@mail.gmail.com> <0BF9ED5E-5B73-4316-AE95-0D85B73CBD19@phonefromhere.com> <CALiegfnE9G_vxXDha7pb57pmd=rovLOz=-uWTOirSPDV-pLyMg@mail.gmail.com> <20110915140248.4cc17977@lminiero-acer>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:12:14 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfk4+XbkCCEYGQs2ptvHUYTQM1pgpZW7yq7FOT6k7RX5AQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)
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: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:10:24 -0000

2011/9/15 Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>;:
> I don't understand the need for it to be SDP actually: Javascript
> already has native and efficient ways to describe information (JSON,
> XML), if SDP is what everybody wants then it would be easier to just
> map SDP over them.

Assuming that the signaling protocol is custom, my JavaScript code
could receive pure SIP messages or XMPP messages, so the SDP comes in
plain or XML format.

I can parse it manually in my JS code (or use some native JS function
to parse them if they are provided) and convert it to JSON prior to
use it for WebRTC function calls.

Other web application could prefer to create its own signaling
protocol and carry SDP directly in JSON format, of course. Freedom for
all.

Best regards.

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