IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com> Tue, 04 October 2011 07:21 UTC

Return-Path: <saul@ag-projects.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C379021F8B8D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.703
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.015, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nb4iG3HU7L03 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:21:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node06.dns-hosting.info [85.17.186.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE50621F8B8B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 00:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix, from userid 5001) id 688B9B01B8; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:24:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.99.36] (ip3e830637.speed.planet.nl [62.131.6.55]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A14A9B019A; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:24:11 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:24:10 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CD6EC5F5-7EAF-4ADA-9486-016A72DF7EE1@ag-projects.com>
References: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 04 Oct 2011 07:21:22 -0000

Hi,

Here are some comments after the first read:

"There are lots of
   issues in Javascript based signaling protocol."

What issues? Do you have an implementation to sustain that statement?

"Architecture"

I guess you noticed that  the architecture graph in your draft is exactly the SIP trapezoid. But we can't make everyone happy, XMPP guys will want to use XMPP and SIP guys will want to use SIP, there is no need to force people to use either, or any other.

"Without RTCWeb standard signaling protocol, each website developer
      has to understand the complication of signaling protocol for
      making the real-time communication."

With libraries like jQuery one doesn't need to know about xmlhttprequest anymore, so I'd say the same would be true for any signaling sibrary developed by a thirst party. It could expose a simple API for other developers to use, but of course, the one building the library itself *has* to know about the protocol.

"Also, browser has to download each website signaling protocol
      indepentely"

Of course, same as with any other JS library or plugin. Why do you see a difference between the signaling protocol for RTCweb and everything else?

Overall, I didn't see any key points for the need of a default signaling protocol. I wouldn't agree with it even if you advocated for SIP, this should be up to the developer.


Regards,

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status