IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] signaling protocol

SHANMUGALINGAM SIVASOTHY <Shanmugalingam.Sivasothy@telecom-sudparis.eu> Mon, 12 September 2011 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <Shanmugalingam.Sivasothy@telecom-sudparis.eu>
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 84EE321F8E87 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 2fibMR7aVIU5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.it-sudparis.eu (webmail.int-evry.fr [157.159.10.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5032021F8E84 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.it-sudparis.eu (localhost [127.0.0.1] (may be forged)) by webmail.it-sudparis.eu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p8CLp7LL001447; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:51:07 +0200
Received: (from apache@localhost) by webmail.it-sudparis.eu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id p8CLp6gR001446; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:51:06 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: webmail.it-sudparis.eu: apache set sender to Shanmugalingam.Sivasothy@telecom-sudparis.eu using -f
Received: from 79.94.93.189 ([79.94.93.189]) by webmail.it-sudparis.eu (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:51:06 +0200
Message-ID: <20110912235106.11944d366mqtw6o0@webmail.it-sudparis.eu>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:51:06 +0200
From: SHANMUGALINGAM SIVASOTHY <Shanmugalingam.Sivasothy@telecom-sudparis.eu>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB08B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <496EE152-41F2-49AB-A136-05735FE5A9F9@voxeo.com><101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31018BF6BE2@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E540FE2.7020605@alcatel-lucent.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5106423F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E6595E7.7060503@skype.net><4E661C83.5000103@alcatel-lucent.com> <4E668FB3.9020601@skype.net><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F08FE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E67AD3D.9000005@alvestrand.no><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F090F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E686663.1050900@alvestrand.no><4E68CB68.3020100@alcatel-lucent.com><4E68D182.2090003@alvestrand.no><4E68D742.4010203@alcatel-lucent.com><4E68D8B5.7010602@alvestrand.no><4E6915F2.5000007@alcatel-lucent.com> <4E691CC6.9050905@stpeter.im> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0A19@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E6E2B5F.7030307@stpeter.im> <4E6E3DEE.8080200@gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0AA1@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.c om> <4E6E7C0B.3040201@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4E6E7C0B.3040201@stpeter.im>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Dynamic Internet Messaging Program (DIMP) H3 (1.1.4)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:59:28 -0700
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] 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: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 21:58:02 -0000

Hi All!

Some info on signaling protocol

1. Compositional Control of IP Media,  
http://www2.research.att.com/~pamela/cmc.pdf

2. Understanding SIP Through Model-Checking,  
http://www2.research.att.com/~pamela/under2.pdf

In paper [1], she argued that new protocol is better than SIP. The  
comparison includes:
  A. Transaction vs idempotent
  B. Program complexity
  C. Media bundling

  Enjoy reading.

Best regards
Siva



Quoting Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>:

> On 9/12/11 12:41 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>> <snip> > I think that the protocol used for server-to-server federation
>> is a
>>> matter for the service providers and thus is not in scope for RTCWeb.
>> </snip>
>>
>> Sec 4.2.5 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-04 includes
>> the usecase for federation. My assumption is based on this usecases.
>> Till now, there is no better protocol than SIP exists for this
>> discussion.
>>
>>> Some s2s links might use SIP, some might use XMPP/Jingle, etc.
>>> </snip>
>>
>> I agree with you that signaling interop is not focus of RTCWeb and only
>> one webserver is solution space then your solution looks like working.
>> Even then, I prefer single signaling protocol rather than ad-hoc
>> signaling protocol by each web developer.
>
> Using DNS SRV records, it's easy enough to figure out what protocols are
> supported by the peer service with which you want to federate.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email