Re: [rtcweb] Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02 (Browser RTC trapezoid)

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 20 October 2011 08:20 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 5A25121F8AD3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 DOIylOWaRI6m for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA46E21F8ACA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8427B39E0F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:20:44 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3feRfEFgAYkc for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:20:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (62-20-124-50.customer.telia.com [62.20.124.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 815FD39E072 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:20:43 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E9FD9DB.2040203@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:20:43 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF511599F9@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E9E5D8D.6030707@alvestrand.no><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159A20@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfk+Ezaz2Y4kFkooSozJsDyZZWxqdpX=fec==PYzBHm-bw@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159AA6@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <23CC8E74-8C17-4484-998B-2A7B66358B81@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <23CC8E74-8C17-4484-998B-2A7B66358B81@ag-projects.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02 (Browser RTC trapezoid)
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: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:20:49 -0000

On 10/19/11 23:54, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 11:39 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>
>> Inaki,
>>
>> There are fundamentally two aspects in RTCWeb:
>>
>> 1) (on-wire) protocol mechanism - How protocol is designed between RTCWeb client (browser) and RTCWeb server, RTCWeb client and RTCWeb client. The protocol design does not focus on RTCWeb client only but also in RTCWeb server because the protocol has to be implemented in both entities. IOW, it is not 20 lines of JavaScript but impact of RTCWeb server design has to be noted as well. Here IETF has significant role and it has to come up with best protocol design between RTCWeb entities.
>>
>> 2) API design (JavaScript in browser) - Browser provides RTCWeb client framework and exposes its API as JavaScript and JavaScript is the language/script of choice for browsers. The interaction is between browser and JavaScript only. IMO, W3C plays the vital role in coming up with best API set and also, there is no on-wire stuff here. Here, the discussion focus is whether low level API or ROAP API or any other high level API. Of course, I have less experience in JavaScript based API design. Please note that I have designed and worked in protocol framework in other languages like C, TCL.
>>
> If point 2, the JS API is flexible enough there is no need for a new protocol design, we can reuse an existing one and use the JS API for the media layer. I've lost count on the number of times this has already been said, lets move on.
I've lost count of the number of times you've said it, but I still don't 
agree.

I think we need ROAP as part of our API spec. That, too, has been 
repeated any number of times.