Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)])

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com> Mon, 26 September 2011 07:08 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 CB00E21F850B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.706
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.018, 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 VFfa43TKP+bn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:08:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node06.dns-hosting.info [85.17.186.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26C7D21F8508 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix, from userid 5001) id 6FC80B01BB; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:10:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.99.36] (ip3e830637.speed.planet.nl [62.131.6.55]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1DE2B017D; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:10:52 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <saul@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <0FEA137C08A9DF4781EEF745038C969430A51F6401@nambx03.corp.adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:10:51 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5290D7E8-31AB-44BB-A8B2-3D1C2A4FB797@ag-projects.com>
References: <CALiegfnOCxyTo9ffQ272+ncdu5UdgrtDT-dn10BWGTZMEjZoCg@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C0A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <05CAC192-E462-421F-B1E5-B78DC8F60306@ag-projects.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C93@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <16880306-5B3A-4EFD-ADE4-1201138D9182@acmepacket.com> <8584590C8D7DD141AA96D01920FC6C698C896B71@gbplmail03.genband.com> <CA+9kkMAwnnKKO5+q6ey4Z0QNxax1QF21vVtw8FNsHy_rmfenjQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E76E078.5020708@jesup.org> <8548CBBD-4E12-48F3-BC59-341FF45EF22F@acmepacket.com> <4E77495E.4000409@jesup.org> <CALiegfkTdCAeEdZbXP1Y9L6i4Anjrgf1CG6ZNj35WGoHL3p_Ew@mail.gmail.com> <4E774F92.4040405@jesup.org> <8ECCEE59-E855-4EA9-92B9-543D1585B1F0@ag-projects.com> <4E778F1F.9090105@jesup.org> <CEA0AC9E-6387-4066-95DC-0D70302E80A7@ag-projects.com> <4E77C3EC.9060801@jesup.org> <CAD5OKxtciYxaVpb7b3G9yMg1A97b9dkjkOpppZcSRzS5SAO3+A@mail.gmail.com> <DB86C19C-781C-4FD2-ADE2-D6E1C0EE1D61@ag-projects.com> <4E79A964.2050007@alvestran d.no> <0FEA137C08A9DF4781EEF745038C969430A51F6401@nambx03.corp.adobe.com>
To: Jozsef Vass <jovass@adobe.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)])
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, 26 Sep 2011 07:08:14 -0000

On Sep 23, 2011, at 2:58 AM, Jozsef Vass wrote:

> I am in support of having some basic mechanism in the browser as part of rtcweb to enable developers to quickly and easily setup media between participants. Furthermore, if an API is too complex or too hard to use, people will not use it or misuse it. I can only see a handful of companies developing advanced calling feature on top of rtcweb, most people just want to have something simple to work without caring too much about the details.
> 
> Maybe it would be advantages to specify such a very basic use case, e.g., targeting gaming. It must work behind NATs using peer-to-peer media transport (but fallback to media relay may not be required). Since it is targeting closed community, there is no need for interoperability, there is no need for SIP, Jingle, etc. At the minimum, this would require a simple service for ip address lookup and to aid NAT and firewall traversal.
> 

This is a no go. What "closed community" are you talking about? Interoperability is a MUST here, even if I'm in favor of not having any default signaling protocol specified. We need to be able to communicate with other protocols without building gateways. This can be achieved with both SIP and XMPP, so I see no need for reinventing the wheel. Lets let developers use whatever protocol they like and just use RTCweb for the media part.

> For example, when a user registers with this service, he/she is assigned an identifier or blob. In order to communicate with another party, all they need to do is to exchange this information (this can be done using websocket, etc.) and setup media channel. There should be no need for parsing SDP, etc.
> 

What service? Who would host a server?

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects