[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 [127.0.0.1]) 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-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (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 ([132.177.252.46]) (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: 132.177.252.46 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.
- [rtcweb] RTCWeb-it2 results Robert Sparks