IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Just browser-browser and browser-"gateway"? is this an RTCweb assumption?

"Jim Barnett" <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com> Fri, 13 April 2012 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.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 7239221F8633 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 05:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 I7L+FgxLa90s for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 05:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay-out2.dc.genesyslab.com (relay-out2.dc.genesyslab.com [198.49.180.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386A021F8629 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 05:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from g2.genesyslab.com (g2.genesyslab.com [192.168.20.138]) by relay-out2.dc.genesyslab.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q3DCoQZO014761; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 05:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com ([192.168.20.92]) by g2.genesyslab.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 13 Apr 2012 05:50:26 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CD1973.FFC20721"
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 05:50:19 -0700
Message-ID: <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD8106085E1A@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxvgZS99CPYs8WkQGpbBFMff-ueFWpo6oENcD_2+LDEUKg@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Just browser-browser and browser-"gateway"? is this an RTCweb assumption?
Thread-Index: Ac0ZahRWaGLgQTo0TXu5s4bVO4wR5wACXXmA
References: <CALiegf=uDMycijcC+V6e+T0T8ZPkDvH1+TZS6rQ4BKXBU=+dJg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxvgZS99CPYs8WkQGpbBFMff-ueFWpo6oENcD_2+LDEUKg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Apr 2012 12:50:26.0769 (UTC) FILETIME=[FFD4EC10:01CD1973]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Just browser-browser and browser-"gateway"? is this an RTCweb assumption?
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: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:50:40 -0000

There's a W3C group that  is interested in this, in the form of speech enabling HTML 5 pages (i.e. adding text-to-speech and  speech-to-text capabilities).  We are hoping to use the rtcweb work as part of this.  We'd have a browser one end, a media/IVR server on the other, and voice and data channels.  There's been no specific mention of  video so far, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't  be added.

 

-          Jim

 

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roman Shpount
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 7:39 AM
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Just browser-browser and browser-"gateway"? is this an RTCweb assumption?

 

What about browser to a media server? Does anybody want to do, for instance, video upload from the browser to a video sharing site? 
_____________
Roman Shpount



On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

Hi, by reading RTCWeb Minutes IETF 83 [1] it seems that most of the
folks here assume that WebRTC *media* communication can be done in two
ways:

 1) browser to browser (perhaps with a TURN server)
 2) browser to gateway

So... what about browser to SIP phone and browser to XMPP/Jingle
endpoint (assuming ICE and SDES-SRTP support)?

IMHO assuming that a media gateway is required for any browser to
non-browser media communication is an artificial limitation. If so,
why does RTCweb makes use of RTP and SDP? why not creating its own
"media streaming protocol for RTCweb"?

I hope this subject is clarified and such an assumption relaxed.
Interoperability (*whithout* media gateways) is a good feature and
makes RTCweb adoption easier. Not all the people interested in RTCweb
are gateways vendors.

NOTE: I do *not* mean supporting plain and insecure RTP.

Regards.



[1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-rtcweb.htm

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email