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

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2011/9/16 Ravindran Parthasarathi <[e-mail]>:
> I really didn't get your argument fully because in case there is no default signaling protocol, it is unavoidable to have island of devices without gateways but you argue other way around.

A centralized signaling point is required (think about NAT). Signaling
is just supposed to be present between web-browsers visiting the same
web site, so the signaling can be perfectly carried within HTTP or
WebSocket protocol and be centralized in that server. Otherwise, are
you proposing the existence of a global/unique SIP proxy in the world
for all the web-browsers to intercommunicate?

WebRTC is not about communication between web-browsers as if they were
generic SIP phones contacting directly one to other.




> I specifically asked for the scope of your opinion on RTCWeb work is between browser-to-browser or browser-to-other end-point to know whether parallel universe has to be build or not. In case there is no default signaling protocol, it is impossible to communicate between browser-to-endpoint without gateways

Why is it impossible? If WebSocket is used as a new transport for SIP
and XMPP then web-browsers can establish a pure SIP or XMPP session
with a SIP/XMPP server implementing WebSocket transport. And for sure
that works.


Best regards.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>