Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities

Hi,

>> In my opinion we have TWO types of ENDPOINTS: those that support the >> full set of RTCWEB toolset (e.g. browsers) and those who support a subset >> (e.g. gateways).
>>
>> I don't really care what we call them, but we shouldn't come up with lots >> of different names that people are going to use wrong.
>
> People have also wanted to claim that something is fully WebRTC-compliant > without having a Javascript API on it. That's where the "UA/browser" vs 
> "Device" thing comes in.

I understand. But, why can't we then simply say "JavaScript enabled WebRTC endpoint", or something similar? 

Regards,

Christer

I'm trying to make everyone happy :-)

>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parthasarathi R [mailto:partha@parthasarathi.co.in]
> Sent: 07 October 2014 19:21
> To: Christer Holmberg; 'Harald Alvestrand'; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities
>
> Hi Christer,
>
> I have no issue with WebRTC User Agent, WebRTC device, WebRTC endpoint.
>
> I have bit trouble with WebRTC compatible endpoint as a entity name as
>
> 1) It may pass SRTP/data channel
> 2) It is not required to be endpoint but it shall be middle box.
>
> WebRTC gateway looks more appropriate entity name in those scenarios.
>
> Thanks
> Partha
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer 
>> Holmberg
>> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 11:06 PM
>> To: Harald Alvestrand; rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> DTLS: A webrtc endpoint either uses data channels, which require
>> dtls, or rtp, whuch requires DTLS-srtp, which requires dtls, so I 
>> figured it
>>>> was safe to say that dtls was required.
>>> I think it would be better to explicitly indicate the usages for 
>>> which
>> DTLS needs to be supported, ie DTLS-SRTP for RTP and as defined for 
>> data channels.
>>> Because, DTLS can be used for many different purposes, in different
>> ways, so just saying “support DTLS” is unclear.
>>
>> In addition, it is probably useful to indicate that an compatible 
>> endpoint may not necessarily terminate all DTLS usages. For example, 
>> a gateway might simply pass through the data channel, and/or the SRTP 
>> traffic.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Den 3. oktober 2014 14:01:20 CEST, skrev Christer Holmberg
>> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> First, I personally see no need for all these definitions.
>>
>> I think it would be enough to have:
>>
>> - WebRTC endpoint (e.g. a browser)
>> - WebRTC-compatible endpoint (e.g. a gateway)
>>
>> If people really think we need more, I won't argue against. I just 
>> think it becomes very messy, and people WILL end up using the wrong 
>> terminology :)
>>
>>
>> Second, you say:
>>
>>  "Note that support for DTLS, ICE and TURN ARE required for a WebRTC- 
>> compatible endpoint, and if RTP is used at all, DTLS-SRTP MUST be 
>> used."
>>
>> You already in the bullet list said support of ICE lite, so the text 
>> is conflicting.
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean by "support for TURN". An ICE lite 
>> endpoint will not create TURN candidates etc. Of course, it may 
>> receive media via a TURN server.
>>
>> What do you mean by "support for DTLS"? I think you need to be a 
>> little more specific (later you do mention DTLS-SRTP in case of RTP).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald 
>> Alvestrand
>> Sent: 3. lokakuuta 2014 10:44
>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities
>>
>> After all the feedback, I've taken another whack at this.
>>
>> It seems that the term "WebRTC endpoint" is already used widely 
>> enough that it's worth continuing to use it. So I ended up with the 
>> following suggested text for -overview's definitions.
>>
>> Comments?
>> If this seems OK, I'll emit another -overview next week with these 
>> definitions.
>>
>> --------------------------
>>
>>     o  A WebRTC User Agent (also called an UA or browser) is 
>> something that conforms to both the protocol specification and the 
>> Javascript API defined above.
>>
>>     o  A WebRTC device is something that conforms to the protocol
>>        specification, but does not
>> claim to implement the Javascript API.
>>
>>     o  A WebRTC endpoint is either a WebRTC UA or a WebRTC device.
>>
>>     o  A WebRTC-compatible endpoint is an endpoint that is capable of 
>> successfully communicating with a WebRTC endpoint, but may fail to 
>> meet some requirement of the WebRTC endpoint. This may limit where in 
>> the network such an endpoint can be attached, or may limit the 
>> security guarantees that it offers to others.
>>
>>     o  A WebRTC gateway is a WebRTC-compatible endpoint that mediates 
>> media traffic to non-WebRTC entities.
>>
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> FOR TRANSPORT:
>>
>> A WebRTC-compatible endpoint is capable of inititating or accepting a 
>> session with a WebRTC endpoint. The following requirements on a 
>> WebRTC endpoint are not required for such success:
>>
>> - Support for full ICE. If the endpoint is only ever going to be 
>> attached to the public Internet, it does not need to be able to fix 
>> its own external address; ICE-Lite is enough.
>> - Support for the full suite of MTI codecs for a WebRTC endpoint. In 
>> particular, audio gateways that connect to native G.711 networks may 
>> choose to implement G.711 and not implement Opus.
>> - Offering BUNDLE or RTCP-MUX
>> - Using MSID in its offers or answers <should congestion cutoff 
>> requirement be in or out?> <there will be
>> more>
>>
>> Note that support for DTLS, ICE and TURN ARE required for a WebRTC- 
>> compatible endpoint, and if RTP is used at all, DTLS-SRTP MUST be used.
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

--
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.