Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 04 October 2011 08:18 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 341D121F8D2B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 01:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.204
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.204 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.394, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ze9ldBodIrxX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 01:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095D421F8CF6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 01:18:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD52039E132 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:21:57 +0200 (CEST)
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 BJU477IisJxA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:21:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [172.16.41.139] (unknown [74.125.121.33]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03F9939E048 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:21:55 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E8AC222.4050308@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:21:54 +0200
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: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010006050504020305060001"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
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: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:18:55 -0000

Ravindran,

the core part of your document seems to me to be this list:

    The following Signaling protocols will qualify for becoming standard
    RTCWeb signaling protocol

    1.  Jingle
    2.  Websocket with SDP offer/answer
    3.  SIP
    4.  SIPLite [I-D.cbran-rtcweb-protocols  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00#ref-I-D.cbran-rtcweb-protocols>]
    5.  Websocket with custom XML
    6.  Megaco [RFC5125  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5125>]
    7.  Websocket with SIP [I-D.ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00#ref-I-D.ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket>]
    8.  HTTP with custom XML
    9.  ???

    TBD: Pros and cons for each of the signaling mechanism has to be
    added


My reading of your document is that you want the RTCWEB working group to 
pick exactly one of these alternatives, and insist that all conformant 
implementations of RTCWEB support this protocol.

I disagree with:

a) that this is needed
b) that this is a good idea

The reasons why it is not a good idea have been raised multiple times, 
and spending continued effort on trying to debate which of the 
alternatives you list above is "the best one" is distracting to our 
purpose of getting the RTCWEB protocol suite done.

I do not support pursuing your suggested direction of work in this 
working group.

                      Harald





On 10/03/2011 04:41 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> RTCWeb standard signaling protocol (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00) draft list the need for standard signaling protocol between RTCWeb client (browser) and RTCWeb server and the possible signaling protocol for the same. This draft is written based on http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg01172.html mail thread discussion. Could you please provide your valuable comments.
>
> Thanks
> Partha
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:56 PM
> To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
> Cc: Ravindran Parthasarathi
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00.txt
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Parthasarathi Ravindran and posted to the IETF repository.
>
> Filename:	 draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling
> Revision:	 00
> Title:		 RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
> Creation date:	 2011-10-03
> WG ID:		 Individual Submission
> Number of pages: 8
>
> Abstract:
>     The standardization of Real time communication between browsers is to
>     provide the infrastructure for audio, video, text communication using
>     standard interface so that interoperable communication can be
>     established between any compatible browsers.  RTCWeb specific
>     Javascript API will be provided by browsers for developing real-time
>     web application.  It is possible to develop signaling protocol like
>     Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) or Jingle or websocket extension or
>     custom-made signaling protocol in Javascript.  There are lots of
>     issues in Javascript based signaling protocol.  This document list
>     the need for standard signaling protocol between RTCWeb client
>     (browser) and RTCWeb server and possible signaling protocol for the
>     same.
>
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>