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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Tue, 04 October 2011 05:31 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
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 702DD21F8DE7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.351
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 A9RtJFF-JI36 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D75E21F8E18 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail04.sonusnet.com (sonusmail04.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.98]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p945ZFVj017932; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 01:35:15 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail04.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 01:34:38 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 11:04:34 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1392@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfn6w=9Y2-7y7i1x_oEP3XHSRjDqAXZ5QWPhrHpT8rA8xA@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
Thread-Index: AcyCC5O0D25GrXvHTleT4m7LMW7OkAAR+UDQ
References: <CALiegfnOCxyTo9ffQ272+ncdu5UdgrtDT-dn10BWGTZMEjZoCg@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C0A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><05CAC192-E462-421F-B1E5-B78DC8F60306@ag-projects.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C93@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><16880306-5B3A-4EFD-ADE4-1201138D9182@acmepacket.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F137B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfn6w=9Y2-7y7i1x_oEP3XHSRjDqAXZ5QWPhrHpT8rA8xA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?ScOxYWtpIEJheiBDYXN0aWxsbw==?= <ibc@aliax.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Oct 2011 05:34:38.0051 (UTC) FILETIME=[4EAB3330:01CC8257]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: 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: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 05:31:42 -0000

Hi Inaki,

Hope you agree that Real-time communication in web is possible without RTCWeb standard and it is clearly stated in RTCWeb charter first line as well "There are a number of proprietary implementations that provide direct
  interactive rich communication using audio, video, collaboration,
  games, etc. between two peers' web-browsers.". I understand that jquery or libjingle library may act as an alternative but it is far better in case signaling protocol is provided in the browser platform itself. 

As a RTCweb developer, the standard signaling protocol helps as follows:

1) there is no need to peek into each license of jquery library and understand the terms and conditions for developing the real-time application.
2) No need of every browser user to download jquery library from each website. Unlike few number of E-mail provider (gmail, yahoo, hotmail), the real-time application provider will be huge. But number of browser is going to be countable and not as much as real-time websites are.
3) I heard from web developer about browser compatible jquery development story which is same as SIP interop issues. 
4) Perform of the native signaling protocol will be better than jquery library. Please note that plugin is forbidden in RTCWeb client (browser).

IMO, Jquery will not solve the indented problem.  

The main motive for RTCWeb standard signaling is rapid real-time application in browser platform by any web developer and there should be no need of signaling expert in each website development team. 

Thanks
Partha



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:ibc@aliax.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 2:02 AM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Hadriel Kaplan; rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About
>defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
>
>2011/10/3 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>;:
>> I agree to the fact that SCCP protocol is decided by Cisco folks but
>it does not mean that every company in the world has to create their own
>version of SCCP protocol and IETF should not force every company to re-
>invent the wheel.
>
>I agree, but that's not mean that a default signaling protocol
>built-in the browser is required. Lot of people uses jQuery and nobody
>asks for it to be included in browsers JS stack natively.
>
>What you suggest can easily achieved with a JS library implementing
>your so much desired default signaling protocol.
>
>
>
>--
>Iñaki Baz Castillo
><ibc@aliax.net>;