Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: Aboutdefining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

Partha,

I would consider the fact that each server has its own JS library a huge
advantage -- each server needs to interop with its own library. If we want
to add extensions, we can add them in the server and JS, and not worry about
creating a new standard and going through an interop.
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hadriel,
>
> Please read inline.
>
> Thanks
> Partha
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:29 AM
> >To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
> >Cc: Roman Shpount; Randell Jesup; <[e-mail]>
> >Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE:
> >Aboutdefining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
> >
> >
> >On Sep 20, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
> >
> >> I agree with you in case you wish to have all class 5 services in
> this
> >architecture. In the web game server wherein the basic call has to be
> >established between two parties, this complexity is not required.
> >
> >OK, let's take the game example... only 2-player games would be able to
> >use a simple rtcweb-SIP agent.  Anything more than 2-player would want
> >to use the multi-party "conferencing" model of rtcweb, which can't even
> >be signaled with SIP today as far as I can tell. (not that I've thought
> >about it too much, but I can't see how it would without some changes to
> >SIP)
> >
> <partha> In fact rtcweb client shall acts as conference un-aware client
> in the conference model and game server acts as conference server. I
> have worked in 3-party conference using SIP in the endpoint but I have
> never seen endpoint acts as conference server. So, I may be missing
> something here </partha>
>
> >
> >
> >> One of the main aim of the RTCWeb default signaling protocol is to
> >make two party real-time communication easy with less development
> effort
> >for any web developer.
> >
> >Why doesn't using JS libraries provide that ease of development,
> >assuming there's a good "signaling agent" JS library for whatever
> >communication model the deployer wants/needs?  If there isn't a good JS
> >library, then one would wonder why we think all browsers will have a
> >good built-in signaling agent instead.
> >
> <partha>The disadvantage with JS is that each server has to provide its
> own instance of JS library. It may be possible to have plugin instead of
> JS but it will defeat the purpose of RTCWeb charter. </partha>
>
> >-hadriel
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>