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

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Mon, 07 November 2011 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 B702021F8BF3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:27:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 bMWbpZ8IpPYQ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E65821F8B6C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B6E39E119 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 17:27:36 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0uAl8ecSXB4g for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 17:27:35 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (62-20-124-50.customer.telia.com [62.20.124.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A051539E112 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 17:27:35 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4EB806F7.2090603@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:27:35 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxt=k_Mon_GMs1w-bGMgpk12h6ZQ=FkoRVsTp4271iMSLA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNMTgwH-R_jd-AiEJ8tELTeFMNm-bAJohRg2RxD5e+kZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGRBmrAqB3CEWxtaXnryPA5App13S2jJPAt+7HwWZsQFzA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNtoizuRymVMxF4CdiLu1Nju63C0xkWJHjoarpxeLXjyA@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfk=oJJ20GhKQBKA7aspHhUyQ-s+DR-qSi4XV455Nj718w@mail.gmail.com> <9C4C8AE2-4AFF-4553-9D19-556F12AC066E@phonefromhere.com> <9B907E0E-7FE7-4302-BDFA-CEEC12734B8C@edvina.net> <7BF02133-2A7E-48ED-982F-90B7868F9FB9@phonefromhere.com> <4EB74D06.8000006@jesup.org> <CAAJUQMihjTRgpO8hjgiYz5iLbWTncdXFO8nnRE9VDRND36-b2w@mail.gmail.com> <4EB7FAED.4070104@jesup.org>
In-Reply-To: <4EB7FAED.4070104@jesup.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:27:37 -0000

On 11/07/2011 04:36 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
> On 11/7/2011 7:20 AM, Wolfgang Beck wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Randell 
>> Jesup<randell-ietf@jesup.org>  wrote:
>>> On 11/6/2011 9:01 AM, Tim Panton wrote:
>>>> [..]
>>>
>>> For example, you mention forking and glare.  Well, I've given very
>>> non-interop cases of where forking would be useful: contacting 
>>> someone who
>>> has 2 desktops, a notebook, a tablet, and a phone all logged into the
>>> service, or some of the game scenarios, or a very 
>>> non-standard-SIP-like mesh
>>> conference using forked invites.
>
>> Do you really need forking to achieve this? Couldn't you just return
>> references to those devices back to the caller
>> which can then decide how to call them? A redirect server instead of a
>> forking proxy?
>
> So I assume instead of letting the server fork, you'd have the server 
> return "you should really call these N specific sub-addresses", and 
> have the client redo the call with those sub-addresses (which BTW 
> complicates the security and camera/mic access model, I think).  It 
> would then generate N parallel OFFERs via the server.
If we were doing a greenfield application, I'd let the server tell all 
the possible endpoints that they should set up a connection to the 
original caller, and forget about the caller calling anyone.

The difference between caller and callee is a question of your level of 
abstraction.....