[rtcweb] RTCWeb-it2 results

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 19 November 2013 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980771AE8D0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:18:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.035
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.035 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GDZvLbz-Rj_l for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:18:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CCB61AE8CD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:18:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 132-177-252-46.ip.sipit.net ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rAJ1Idgd095759 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:18:41 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <528ABC71.9090005@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:18:41 -0800
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, SIP Forum Discussion <discussion@sipforum.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070404020508020608020304"
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [rtcweb] RTCWeb-it2 results
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 19 Nov 2013 01:18:48 -0000

The second SIP Forum RTCWeb Interoperability Test was hosted by TMC in 
Santa Clara, California, Monday November 18, 2013.

We had a very successful test session. Most of the scenarios we 
exercised "just worked" the first time. We had two browser 
implementations, and one application suite at the table. The scenarios 
we tested included a rich combination of nat and firewall restricted 
network paths, ensuring that the expected media and datachannel path was 
taken in each scenario. (This included forcing the browsers to 
communicate only through a Turn server.)

One observation from the tests is that implementations cannot rely on 
streams being available until onAddStream is called. This may or may not 
happen before the setRemoteDescription success callback.

We found a few deployed applications that are currently changing their 
behavior based on the User-Agent string, and have cost themselves 
starting to automatically work cross-browser as the browsers are being 
updated. New application developers should isolate such decisions. (It 
would have been nice to disable these checks to see if cross-browser 
DataChannels worked with the browser code at the table.)

Having a rich application suite available helped drive effective tests, 
and provided very useful feedback for the application developer. All 
application developers should consider attending the next event to get 
the quick feedback this kind of testing environment provides.