Re: [rtcweb] Current state of signaling discussion

[Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

Dear Chairs,
I have a question of clarification on your request for "signaling" proposals/drafts.
Which *type* of "signaling" do you mean?  What purpose/problem-solution are these candidate drafts meant to address?

In the email below, you indicate draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling is one of the drafts that provides a solution, but as far as I can tell it is not a session signaling protocol; it is just a protocol for SDP offer/answer.  It is not a sufficient solution for sessions, and it admits that within its own text.  It would not, for example, let one write a RTCWeb-based communication application in "20 lines of code".

So are you only talking about how to handle media-plane setup between two Browsers? (ie codec negotiation, ICE, etc.)  OR do you mean the whole shebang?

There have been a lot emails floating around the past few days so if I've missed the relevant clarification please excuse the question. (but direct me to the answer :)

-hadriel


On Oct 18, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> WG,
> 
> This is an attempt of me as WG chair to try to summarize the state of
> the discussion as it was when I wrote this. As usual please speak up
> against any miss-characterization of the state from my side.
> 
> The Chairs request for identifying who like to provide input for a
> signaling discussion two weeks and to follow up this with a Internet
> draft has resulted in that we now have two drafts.
> 
> a) RTCWeb Offer/Answer Protocol (ROAP)
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling/
> 
> b) RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling/
> 
> We also have a third proposal that want to be included in the
> considerations:
> c) RTCWEB does not define any signaling behavior at all, instead W3C is
> tasked to develop an API that allows the application to establish the
> media session between peers.
> 
> I have as WG chair requested that the proponents for C to produce a
> Internet draft that provides requirements on the API and its capability.
> This is to ensure that this proposal can be properly evaluated. So far
> no such contribution has occurred. Without a willingness from the
> proponents of this style of solution to contribute and evolve their
> thinking in such way that the other WG members can gain a better
> understanding of the implications of this solution I find it difficult
> for us include it in the up coming consensus call.
> 
> We intended to have a phone conference on Friday to enable some direct
> discussion on the topic of signaling between the WG members. Details to
> follow. This is not an interim, only a possibility for the WG members to
> further their understanding in preparation for the decision.
> 
> In addition to signaling proposals the WG have received two other I-Ds.
> 
> 1) Real-Time Web Communication Simplified Interconnection
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-beck-rtcweb-alt-ic/
> 
> Which I interpret as a discussion piece around the federation and
> interconnect usages.
> 
> 2) WebSocket Transport for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket/
> 
> This is a demonstration that SIP could be implemented in Java script and
> be transported over web-socket to enable the cases where SIP want to be
> used between a browser instance and a SIP system and its user agents.
> This has some requirements on the API to either provide SDP in O/A style
> or something that enables the SIP stack to create SIP messages with SDP
> O/A messages.
> 
> There has been lively discussion around these documents which I hope
> continues but it does need to come to some conclusions.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb