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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Thu, 22 September 2011 18:20 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 9BA6421F8C37 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 OgvbP79MVb79 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E990421F8C36 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:20:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail07.sonusnet.com (sonusmail07.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.157]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8MIO0YY020390; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:24:00 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail07.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:22:59 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:52:49 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0F58@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <C55E752E-18FD-402C-A7DE-1627813B3F6D@acmepacket.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: Aboutdefining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
Thread-Index: AQHMd1pqLHvBWHS2NkWGn3FMeQaTY5VZuBKQ
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><8584590C8D7DD141AA96D01920FC6C698C896B71@gbplmail03.genband.com><CA+9kkMAwnnKKO5+q6ey4Z0QNxax1QF21vVtw8FNsHy_rmfenjQ@mail.gmail.com><4E76E078.5020708@jesup.org><8548CBBD-4E12-48F3-BC59-341FF45EF22F@acmepacket.com><4E77495E.4000409@jesup.org><CALiegfkTdCAeEdZbXP1Y9L6i4Anjrgf1CG6ZNj35WGoHL3p_Ew@mail.gmail.com><4E774F92.4040405@jesup.org><8ECCEE59-E855-4EA9-92B9-543D1585B1F0@ag-projects.com><4E778F1F.9090105@jesup.org><CEA0AC9E-6387-4066-95DC-0D70302E80A7@ag-projects.com><4E77C3EC.9060801@jesup.org> <CAD5OKxtciYxaVpb7b3G9yMg1A97b9dkjkOpppZcSRzS5SAO3+A@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0DD8@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <C55E752E-18FD-402C-A7DE-1627 813B3F6D @acmepacket.com>
From: "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: "Hadriel Kaplan" <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Sep 2011 18:22:59.0793 (UTC) FILETIME=[A87DC410:01CC7954]
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: Aboutdefining 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: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:20:59 -0000

Hadriel,

Please read inline.

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Hadriel Kaplan [mailto:HKaplan@acmepacket.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:29 AM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Roman Shpount; Randell Jesup; <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
>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
>
>
>
>