IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 09 November 2011 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 2D26521F8C4E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:00:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.636
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 mhhs4Sgl1F6O for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:00:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CE821F8C1B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:00:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so1640575vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 05:00:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.187.68 with SMTP id fq4mr4438264vdc.32.1320843631145; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 05:00:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.107.206 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:00:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABRok6nha3Ut5A1c1k=WUYxrn6kxDD=P2no6EFaf4=Uzdbbpwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <8A61D801-D14D-408B-9875-63C37D0CC166@acmepacket.com> <CABw3bnPE=OY_h5bM7GA6wgrXiOBL8P4J0kw1jLv-GSpHAbg=Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNqdkh8u=gwOvKfDCQA7rXdAyQkfaM1r2Sx10787btP6A@mail.gmail.com> <B10FEFF6-0ADC-4DB1-83BB-50A11C65EC35@acmepacket.com> <CABcZeBNSXtim_VqzqAd8Z-u4zWSjaYmsVZPN=7sDYkJsgtRAHA@mail.gmail.com> <4EB7E6A5.70209@alvestrand.no> <F8003BA9-BCD8-4F02-B514-8B883FF90F91@acmepacket.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349D81@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <845C03B2-1975-4145-8F52-8CEC9E360AF3@edvina.net> <5454E693-5C34-4C77-BA07-2A9EE9EE4AFD@cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349FFE@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3B7FD@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A105@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1F2A2C70609D9E41844A2126145FC09804691DA2@HKGMBOXPRD22.polycom.com> <CALiegfmf59jb4asUu9LA6YY_aMtKEnM1Wy34KbuLEn3_h1xBXA@mail.gmail.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3B9C1@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <CALiegfmM1PB=VAQjfh4rW3-3C8aumHdWy9nZxD0-BWBq9Kq_tg@mail.gmail.com> <CABRok6nha3Ut5A1c1k=WUYxrn6kxDD=P2no6EFaf4=Uzdbbpwg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:00:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfkY2yi700jeY+jyDTro5qCQt5A_KyRHShAU7xJfnHNEVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
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: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:00:32 -0000

2011/11/9 Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk>:
> Wouldn't it be great if we had an opportunity to start from a clean sheet,
> carry no legacy baggage and design a platform for the future? Isn't that the
> opportunity presented by WebRTC?
> It will always be possible to gateway to legacy SIP devices, even if we have
> to bridge the media. It seems there is far too much focus on interop and not
> enough on what is best for the WebRTC platform.

Hi Neil, IMHO trying to create a "new RTC protocol" is not the best
option. IMHO we can learn and reuse existing technologies and
specifications. Honestly I don't think it would be positive to
reinvent the wheel about RTP and SDP. RTP is the standard media
protocol and it's good enough. And SDP is a protocol/format to control
such RTP communication.

Creating a new like-RTP/SDP would take long years and we would get
nothing much better. The point is that WebRTC must define its own
requirements rather than implementing RTP in the way SIP telcos desire
just to interoperate with their legacy-and-never-secure SIP devices.

IMHO SRTP and ICE is the way to go (I would say the same even if SIP
or XMPP-Jingle don't exist).

Regards.



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email