IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] X over websockets

Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net> Thu, 13 February 2014 21:38 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CC3B1A051C for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:38:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2nZO9kG41mKV for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:38:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-x22d.google.com (mail-vb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BCB1A055C for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:38:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id m10so8766010vbh.32 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:38:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=crocodilertc.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=FGme3V+1tev9cF/tlRFXe4kZLNvQ3jnJ7kDwzjjbfIA=; b=ObiYBaBDkHXHZknyU7cAqJW6EMpobX257xTAUTfavzot5+XpqI57dRzy4/H1Rn+R5B l5Zcsfv8PL+MwyCYeo9nHiNmKfVMZx0XrJTbNx+0KZuzYb79C1GdwHYs3efT97jbykla Uy9KPGnED1mdR+1y/EONB4iGjyJ/qo9byVX98=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=FGme3V+1tev9cF/tlRFXe4kZLNvQ3jnJ7kDwzjjbfIA=; b=PeXCw4bbKFgSPqgZrHD8MPZPMKrrfPXm6qaj+Dc8YkI/YA77phNwuMOkoaHUhDJL5A GffkvssLFJVtGZavGwL8tSkchoTbL322j1KbOCshsKWidq0rKex0YHipVdx2Ze5fOmSQ 4DjWbi3lfO3xwOSBCAjAcZVTJTvVQMvLGh/9SRBEZWLLxHyE30Qb8DW6u+qinYedQwQd 2TC9hkQb3aNRj7ntv5y5A7u7r9Do+Jci60GQ/yVIroEz8WUiLJsA4NBim+rU6OXO2eXP AFIMDParH1UTMOCwdhiaLPcN+bOJdWUI/7sWQdFRFIn+j0SvOyMNiNCmbUY0Nf8pK9xG sT/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnr/146DFt+0GRN3gy/UeRkWh8cDY7QBxzdAIKxQKFAC0mEvfgatAk55shtv+PiYVRJbt6F
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.157.8 with SMTP id wi8mr252955vdb.46.1392327535122; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:38:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.187.114 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 13:38:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAEqTk6RERBdfkhNc=70n57ADa0=CxVLekFedgRDVdrvx0mWjyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20131213005747.777.34301.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAHBDyN4tSRO_nYy7_-V4xfmDbF0ZeLJ24_fEOQ1p9Z2BvJyinQ@mail.gmail.com> <97B47463-42D2-4BA9-AC2F-DF8C67702DDC@cisco.com> <52FCE70C.1030608@gmail.com> <CAHBDyN7hySvbiJYnvRXDQ2ZS_FYFDMaODXBDRarE6DhRwC=fHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+ag07bPBHzODTWGKFrKE00nO_wiMgRv2GEwUpGCiH25-Xf2Cw@mail.gmail.com> <52FD112B.5040209@alum.mit.edu> <52FD2AE0.7060600@gmail.com> <CAEqTk6TzODAWjpqJPRp_zfGcYm_MLHAvU57sq9h7njpifWiufg@mail.gmail.com> <52FD3883.6050402@gmail.com> <CAEqTk6RERBdfkhNc=70n57ADa0=CxVLekFedgRDVdrvx0mWjyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:38:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEqTk6QBj48cSYjPdVipNC+yr17BDSHEoWqWEEFtkzU-NHhs4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>
To: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0160c5e42473b904f2508401"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/87GaQqntAZIXvH-SsQLLIPleyZ8
Subject: Re: [dispatch] X over websockets
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 21:38:58 -0000

BTW, just looking at MSRP:

MSRP through relay:

   - WebSockets makes sense
   - WebRTC DataChannel does not make sense (due to the need to establish a
   session for the DataChannel so you can send an AUTH to get the information
   you need to establish (another) session for MSRP)

MSRP to peer (which might be a client or might be server)

   - WebSockets makes sense from client to server - the CEMA scenario that
   Christer may provide language for
   - WebRTC DataChannel makes sense between clients
   - WebRTC DataChannel may make sense from clients to server - but
   WebSockets will be lighter weight


Regards,

Peter



On 13 February 2014 21:32, Peter Dunkley <peter.dunkley@crocodilertc.net>wrote:

> My point was more that if we are going to have a discussion about how we
> refer to WebSockets (in SDP or elsewhere) then let's have it, but let's
> also keep it separate from a reopening of the WebSockets vs DataChannel
> discussion.
>
> Which is the right transport (WebSockets/DataChannel) is a use-case
> specific thing.  I don't see the need for any sort of "beauty contest" as
> this is more like the difference between using TCP vs UDP - some things
> work on both and some are better suited to one than the other.  Why would
> we having this "contest" at all, it just doesn't make sense to me.  Some
> things will be on WebSockets, some things will be on DataChannel, some
> things will be on both, and what is wrong with that?
>
>
>
> On 13 February 2014 21:26, Sergio Garcia Murillo <
> sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> El 13/02/2014 22:01, Peter Dunkley escribió:
>>
>>  Hello,
>>>
>>> Wasn't Sergio's point about what the terminology (for example, within
>>> SDP) should be rather than whether WebSockets is appropriate as a transport
>>> or not?  And isn't this a totally separate issue from the WebSockets vs.
>>> WebRTC question?
>>>
>>
>> Yes and no. My point was that all "X over websockets" will have some
>> common issues, so instead of having the same discussion every time, it
>> would be better if we could address them once and for all, so when someone
>> wants to propose a new "X", it does not have to spend time and effort on
>> that issues.
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>> Sergio
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> dispatch@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Dunkley
> Technical Director
> Crocodile RCS Ltd
>



-- 
Peter Dunkley
Technical Director
Crocodile RCS Ltd

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email