Re: [rtcweb] Facebook is not SIP

Tim Panton <> Thu, 20 October 2011 09:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736EE21F8B4A for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4zB5YHzjl0G for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B27521F8B48 for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 362E237A902; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:52:29 +0100 (BST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Tim Panton <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:39:37 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Facebook is not SIP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:39:52 -0000

On 20 Oct 2011, at 10:30, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> On 10/20/11 11:23, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> When two Facebook users chat via web, they are already using a
>> signaling protocol in-the-wire, which one? The *custom* signaling
>> protocol Facebook designed.
> They're using XMPP:

Yes, they are using XMPP - but are they using it to the browser or only for interop? The 
document does not say, and I haven't wiresharked the traffic to see,
at the very least I imagine they are running it over http / websockets.

> Unfortunately Facebook has chosen (so far) to not participate in federation.

Which is a shame, but it does bring up an interesting point, if we were to _force_
federation (of RTC) on a website by standardising it into rtcweb, then
that might cause sites like facebook to reject the standard.

> Rest of message deleted, since it's based on a false premise.

It isn't clear to me that it is a totally false premise and anyway the link above illustrates some
of the issues in using a non- web protocol on a web site. 
Specifically , FB use their own Auth presumably to provide a single-sign-on experience.