Re: [rtcweb] Another consideration about signaling

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Fri, 16 September 2011 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.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 C0F9021F8876 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.356
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.356 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.757, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_43=1, 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 gxhtHuXh5ZEi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3172621F886A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so4163617pzk.4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ChVmqjZw+kKpEqGuqfe/pwDwA0WrZ6o3BwkXc4duMuU=; b=P9IOZlZOl8EwruNTeMWCtq7zm+voO7uaFMwByu5xcGLHHiC9fWm2yLVLIGt4OT+zOc yDyCi2jJbNnOlKpruVJSQY5h/HMSeL9cKxs8kCPQmvye1gjIwn2qxrrkD/ljIlsfoNTk kFMKhqPtmYyeMlJbGDorli645EgzVAB98r4Ns=
Received: by 10.68.56.232 with SMTP id d8mr1825015pbq.169.1316207302189; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:08:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (adsl-70-133-70-225.dsl.scrm01.sbcglobal.net. [70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z1sm36389075pbz.6.2011.09.16.14.08.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E73BB48.3070201@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:10:32 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110818 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CA992240.1D961%henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA992240.1D961%henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Another consideration about signaling
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: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:06:08 -0000

On 09/16/2011 01:56 PM, Henry Sinnreich wrote:
> +1
>
> These are indeed critical items to consider
>
>    
>> if the signaling is implemented within HTTP or WebSocket (by using
>> any custom mechanism), it would be easy for the web server to know the active
>> sessions status in detail, and it could use such a information for rendering
>> it in the webpage (so others web visitors can see the status of my calls, for
>> example).
>>      
>    
>> I just see advantages in *non* mandating a separate and specific
>> signaling protocol within rtcweb, even more taking into account
>> that this is supposed to be an added value for the web. This is: a
>> web-browser MUST NOT be a native SIP phone (IMHO).
>>      
> Though I would add the "other web visitors" may well be other app components
> that creative developers may assemble into rich apps.
>
> Thanks, Henry
>    

Let JSON be the default for websockets, and we can call those lambda 
expressions.



>
> On 9/16/11 10:42 AM, "I�aki Baz Castillo"<ibc@aliax.net>  wrote:
>
>    
>> Hi all,
>>      
> Let's imagine that rtcweb defines a specific signaling protocol
>    
>> (i.e.
>>      
> SIP) so browsers MUST use it natively for signaling the media
>    
>> streams.
>>      
> Of course this would require a SIP proxy/server in server side
>    
>> (think
>>      
> about NAT) which IMHO seems a showstopper (how to deploy such a
>    
>> SIP
>>      
> proxy in shared web hostings? a "mod_sip" for Apache? should I make
>    
>> a
>>      
> XMPP<->SIP protocol gateway in order to intercommunicate web-browsers
> with
>    
>> pure XMPP clients?)
>>      
> But there is another important drawback with this
>    
>> assumption:
>>      
> A web site could be interested in drawing in the web the status
>    
>> of the
>>      
> different audio/video streams between users connected to the web.
>    
>> This
>>      
> could mean displaying in the web the active streams (audio/video),
> when a
>    
>> session is on hold, when it's resumed again, when a new stream
>>      
> is added to a
>    
>> multimedia session (i.e. offering video within an
>>      
> already established audio
>    
>> session).
>>      
> If the signaling uses a separate channel (i.e. SIP) then there is
>    
>> no
>>      
> way for the web server to know what happens during multimedia sessions
> (or
>    
>> it would be really difficult to achieve). So multimedia sessions
>>      
> would be
>    
>> completely separated from the web page itself. Is that what
>>      
> we want?
>
> In the
>    
>> other side, if the signaling is implemented within HTTP or
>>      
> WebSocket (by using
>    
>> any custom mechanism), it would be easy for the
>>      
> web server to know the active
>    
>> sessions status in detail, and it could
>>      
> use such a information for rendering
>    
>> it in the webpage (so others web
>>      
> visitors can see the status of my calls, for
>    
>> example).
>>      
> I just see advantages in *non* mandating a separate and
>    
>> specific
>>      
> signaling protocol within rtcweb, even more taking into account
>    
>> that
>>      
> this is supposed to be an added value for the web. This is: a
> web-browser
>    
>> MUST NOT be a native SIP phone (IMHO). I wouldn't like to
>>      
> see a competition
>    
>> between Firefox 12 and Chrome 17 in next SIPit
>>      
> (Session Initiation Protocol
>    
>> Interoperability Test).
>>      
> Best regards.
>
>    


-- 

---
<i>The wheel.</i metro-link=t dzonatasolyndra>