Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Wed, 15 October 2014 00:29 UTC

From: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: 'Harald Alvestrand' <harald@alvestrand.no>, 'Christer Holmberg' <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <542E53D2.5040500@alvestrand.no> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D465376@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <C45C84E3-FC63-4DF6-ABDE-701FC7584E3C@alvestrand.no> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D465985@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D465A34@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <00f501cfe24a$b8515930$28f40b90$@co.in> <543418D5.8010509@alvestrand.no> <006301cfe316$6d3c5590$47b500b0$@co.in> <54363216.3060700@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <54363216.3060700@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 05:59:36 +0530
Message-ID: <010d01cfe80f$1c8e3930$55aaab90$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: Ac/jjnVOK+o8w9MwT86r1SubD5TE7wEgC5NQ
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/4qFgmZVGyh-ZGySy0f4EccJZPkU
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities
Precedence: list

Hi Harald,

<snip>
>>> 2) It is not required to be endpoint but it shall be middle box.
>> What do you mean by "middle box"? Again, that term is slippery.
> <Partha> I intent to say that the entity which is between two 
> endpoints and it does not end any media session itself. Here, The 
> confusion is that WebRTC compatible endpoint which is not an endpoint 
> but it is a middle box. </Partha>

Seems that this entity (whatever it's called) isn't an endpoint at all, so defining terms for endpoints shouldn't be relevant to whatever this device is.

There's always more boxes in the middle..... although as long as they don't have the DTLS keys, it's limited what they can do to the packets.
<snip>

Could you please update the terminology as "WebRTC compatible device" instead of WebRTC compatible endpoint as the entity is not required to be endpoint.

Thanks
Partha.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 12:29 PM
> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Christer Holmberg'; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities
> 
> On 10/08/2014 06:39 PM, Parthasarathi R wrote:
> > Hi Harald,
> >
> > Please read inline.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Partha
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:16 PM
> >> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Christer Holmberg'; rtcweb@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities
> >>
> >> On 10/07/2014 06:21 PM, Parthasarathi R wrote:
> >>> Hi Christer,
> >>>
> >>> I have no issue with WebRTC User Agent, WebRTC device, WebRTC
> >> endpoint.
> >>> I have bit trouble with WebRTC compatible endpoint as a entity name
> >> as
> >>> 1) It may pass SRTP/data channel
> >> What do you mean by "pass"? That's a slippery term.
> > <Partha> "relay" will be more appropriate term as mentioned in Sec 5
> Para 2 of draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways. </Partha>
> >
> >>> 2) It is not required to be endpoint but it shall be middle box.
> >> What do you mean by "middle box"? Again, that term is slippery.
> > <Partha> I intent to say that the entity which is between two
> endpoints and it does not end any media session itself. Here, The
> confusion is that WebRTC compatible endpoint which is not an endpoint
> but it is a middle box. </Partha>
> 
> Seems that this entity (whatever it's called) isn't an endpoint at all,
> so defining terms for endpoints shouldn't be relevant to whatever this
> device is.
> 
> There's always more boxes in the middle..... although as long as they
> don't have the DTLS keys, it's limited what they can do to the packets.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >>> WebRTC gateway looks more appropriate entity name in those
> scenarios.
> >> As written in my proposal, a WebRTC gateway is a WebRTC compatible
> >> endpoint.
> >>
> > <Partha> As per your proposal, we need to define WebRTC compatible
> endpoint first which is super set of WebRTC gateway. Then, we need to
> clarify which kind of WebRTC compatible endpoint qualify as WebRTC
> gateway. But Christer wishes to have only two definition (Full/Subset).
> </Partha>
> 
> And I don't agree with Christer, so then we're two :-)

[rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Harald Alvestrand
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Christer Holmberg
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Harald Alvestrand
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Christer Holmberg
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Christer Holmberg
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Silvia Pfeiffer
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Harald Alvestrand
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Parthasarathi R
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Harald Alvestrand
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Christer Holmberg
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Harald Alvestrand
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Christer Holmberg
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Parthasarathi R
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Harald Alvestrand
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Parthasarathi R
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Harald Alvestrand
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich)
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Harald Alvestrand
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich)
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Harald Alvestrand
Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities Colin Perkins