Re: [rtcweb] My Opinion: Why I think a negotiating protocol is a Good Thing

[Wolfgang Beck <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> wrote:


> The context of RTCWEB is the well known trapezoid:
>
> +-----------+ +-----------+
> | Web | | Web |
> | | Signalling | |
> | |-------------| |
> | Server | path | Server |
> | | | |
> +-----------+ +-----------+
> / \
> / \ Proprietary over
> / \ HTTP/Websockets
> / \
> / Proprietary over \
> / HTTP/Websockets \
> / \
> +-----------+ +-----------+
> |JS/HTML/CSS| |JS/HTML/CSS|
> +-----------+ +-----------+
> +-----------+ +-----------+
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | Browser | ------------------------- | Browser |
> | | Media path | |
> | | | |
> +-----------+ +-----------+
>
> or even the triangle, where the triangle is formed when the two Web severs
> on top are collapsed into one.
I'll nag you again about my draft where there is only one single web
server and one JS client that runs on both browsers.
If you can make sure that all parties in a call use the same RTCWEB
server and -client, you don't need to standardize a protocol.
We startet RCTWEB to overcome the slow innovation pace associated with
protocol standardization.
If RTCWEB relies on a standardized protocol for its key functionality,
we have gained very little.

> Another design criterion is that interworking should be possible
I'm not convinced that we need this, at least not at the signaling
level of RTCWEB clients and servers.


Wolfgang Beck