Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling - Scope

Hash: SHA1

On 10/19/2011 05:43 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 6:21 , Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> Hi Cullen,
>>>> So, while I support and offer/answer based approach, I think we need to
>>>> get a clearer understanding of the scope.
>>> My view is this is draft is a set of semantics and syntax that operates
>>> over an abstract transport protocol. In most cases the transport with be
>>> web sockets or HTTP based. If this looks like a reasonable protocol, it
>>> would be likely to influence the W3C API.
>> As the ROAP state machine is located in the browser, doesn't that already
>> mean that ROAP must to be supported by the API?
> This whole "is this an API or Protocol discussion" leaves me sort of saying
> "Yes" but I'm not sure it matters much. Any API can be turned into a protocol
> using a RPC approach. 

I disagree here.

> Most protocol lead to a fairly obvious API to describe
> that protocol. From a category theory point of view, I consider an API the
> dual of a protocol. I know opinions differ but in general, I view API's and
> protocols as surprisingly similar.
> ROAP is a protocol that could be used to things like a gateway that converted
> from ROAP to SIP.  However, it is also a protocol that is designed to work
> well with an API like one that might be used by W3C for WebRTC. If we go down
> this ROAP path, I would expect that the the JSON object that gets represented
> by the string in ROAP would be used to pass in the WebRTC API. The two are
> closely related - and that is intentional.
> I'm trying to make a protocol that closely fits with what the web browsers
> want to implement.

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email:
Professional email:
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)


Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 09:04:59 UTC