Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protocol-00 (Open In-The-Wire Protocol for RTC-Web)

Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk> Thu, 27 October 2011 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
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 B383221F8593 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 Em8F6JJklx-J for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.westhawk.co.uk (zimbra.westhawk.co.uk [192.67.4.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71B121F84B6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.12.78.125] (64-58-7-107.sta.mho.net [64.58.7.107]) by zimbra.westhawk.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02CDD37A91E; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:08:18 +0100 (BST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfmFE0zhBg6aZMtRMO5q-k6_jeHAn9q2XivNw8yjNVqyag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 07:55:27 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BB3BBF12-76E5-4D6F-A2B8-836CEFF6EDDB@westhawk.co.uk>
References: <CALiegfmvWWMf6dSikgfZqnSPuN-6UZKwAMfKu9HP2uqJxHMVCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmFE0zhBg6aZMtRMO5q-k6_jeHAn9q2XivNw8yjNVqyag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:46:49 -0700
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protocol-00 (Open In-The-Wire Protocol for RTC-Web)
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, 27 Oct 2011 13:55:36 -0000

On 27 Oct 2011, at 02:55, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:

> 2011/10/25 Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>:
>> A new I-D draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protocol-00.txt has been
>> successfully submitted by Iñaki Baz Castillo,  Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
>> and José Luis Millán Villegas, and posted to the IETF repository.
>> 
>> Filename:        draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protocolRevision:
>>  00Title:           Open In-The-Wire Protocol for RTC-WebCreation
>> date:   2011-10-25WG ID:           Individual SubmissionNumber of
>> pages: 22
>> 
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protocol-00
>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protocol-00.txt
>> 
>> 
>> Abstract:  RTC-Web clients communicate with a server in order to
>> request or  manage realtime communications with other users.  This
>> document  exposes four hypothetical and different RTC-Web scenarios
>> and  analyzes the requirements of the in-the-wire protocol in each of
>> them.
>>   The aim of this document is to make RTC-Web properly fit in the
>> nature of the Web.
> 
> 
> Hi, just wondering if somebody has read this informational draft. I'd
> would really appreciate if folks agree with the conclusiones and
> requirements exposed in the document or want to discuss about them.
> The draft tries to clarify the scope of RTC-Web, and IMHO that's an
> important milestone before we can move on.
> 
> Thanks a lot.

Thank you for writing this up - before I had to ;-)
I agree with almost all of it, but I wonder if you could add a derived requirement:
"  4.  It MUST be possible for a website developer to make his RTC-Web
       scenario to interoperate with a pure SIP or XMPP/Jingle network
       without requiring a signaling protocol gateway (by using SIP over
       WebSocket [I-D.ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket] or XMPP over WebSocket
       [I-D.moffitt-xmpp-over-websocket]).
  5. It must be possible for a website developer to make his RTC-Web
       scenario to interoperate without adding new infrastructure unless they wish to
       interop with the wider world - i.e. if the 
       mysite.com example wished to operate as an 'island' they
       would not need to add additional telephony or expertise 
       servers, as all the neccessary server side work could be done in php
       by his existing web programmers.  "

I think this is implied by your document, but I feel it is critically important 
so worth explicitly stating it. 

Tim.