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

Cullen Jennings <> Tue, 04 October 2011 22:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C14A921F8D43 for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.027
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.428, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ifcaoe1DTZiF for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0654F21F8CBB for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1259; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317768979; x=1318978579; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=y3E5DStYe1HUPoNQ8CUSSYVm6//+1auHZXdtsQ53w8A=; b=AkFmgKS1iL1Z3RPGpf1nDFDdy4TU7HfGXaXFEuqCLMb8mgG0WLkMV5oa SwRWS6PUhy7Oxgz8IpLf0n6/qc4ODbvXMGCgmfdIyXd3o6oyPJkA8EVh/ qBhkjTQQ3mnc5ANKgj0JTYJnEHVRFLntcmmI2aSQxy2EVy0QIe9OzNEmI 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FAMmNi06rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABCpleBNIEFgVMBAQEBAxIBJz8QCzsLVwY1oToBnWyGQmEEh3iLboUnjDo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,487,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="5947442"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2011 22:56:19 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p94MuI8o010149; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:56:18 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <>
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W476B3866CE31803056E3C93FB0@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:56:18 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <> <BLU152-W476B3866CE31803056E3C93FB0@phx.gbl>
To: Bernard Aboba <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:53:13 -0000

On Oct 4, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> [BA]  I think this is the main point.   If we finish RTCWEB 1.0 expeditiously, this will in all likelihood
> spawn a number of browser-independent signaling libraries, as well as developing a wealth of experience
> with the limitations of RFCWEB 1.0, to inform future efforts. 
> The alternative is to "load up the camel" until it collapses under the weight of (largely irrelevant) use
> cases.  Since the realtime web has been around for over a decade, we have a pretty good idea of what
> native realtime capabilities would be used for -- and PSTN connectivity has never been high on the list.

So uh, you are right we have a lot of experience with real time communications on the internet. Things that come to mind over the last ten years include Microsoft Voice.NET, Vonage, Dialpad, Telio, CBeyond, Skype, Yahoo Messenger, Fring, Google Voice, Webex. That's not a systematic sample but just some random things that came to my mind. Oddly, they all seem to connect with the PSTN. What are the things you are thinking of that decided that PSTN connectivity was not high on the list? Perhaps we can look at which ones ended up being successful.