Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Action items enclosed!)

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 05 October 2011 00:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 B257921F8DAB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 vgmQUZHbtB-h for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E711E21F8DA9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyd12 with SMTP id 12so1236221gyd.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=a4+GdpWuU9wdEEGc/K3gN4wYG5fQHyDf6J07/7Alxa0=; b=TQuejoHJxmskMamMwVapREEVAAmgezR7n6qa41k7hjFZ0eVd5aXa+3y5KLsGPzzaef WqqPjh9fLvjad1GHEZW6AGvBeVHaWn6m31wvt3R2a2rgNseJxXyvJJ+9jJyrqQp8q8iK 8WEiOiLmQGCMBF1+rpB7SI03ZxXQvrIg9dHKg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.176.130 with SMTP id b2mr355271yhm.57.1317773199170; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.105.169 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfmYgQ+yb=pDp1J2_PVa1SkxTOuaUCM02Vt6-iGabwif1g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBi9BzDu=WOq3RG-o5nbfnUTftDg3LRBU3DFh=Kc4W5ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmYgQ+yb=pDp1J2_PVa1SkxTOuaUCM02Vt6-iGabwif1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:06:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCUTiPO3eASjn0mbRA9YCF6TMmGGOjQ4NkVkvzVMN39Gg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303f65126e5d8b04ae81fba8
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Action items enclosed!)
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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 00:03:34 -0000

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote:

> 2011/10/4 Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>om>:
> > At today's Chairs call, Cullen, Magnus and I had a discussion of how to
> make
> > progress on the signaling discussion.  We feel the mailing list
> discussion
> > needs to have more concrete proposals in order to make progress, and so
> > we're putting forward the following:
> >
> > 1) If you plan to put forward a draft proposing a concrete solution in
> this
> > space, please send your name to the mailing list with that intent by
> October
> > 7th *THIS FRIDAY*
>
> Hi Ted, could you please explain what exactly are you looking for? a
> concrete signaling mechanism within rtcweb? something native in
> browsers? something carried by HTTP/WebSocket?
>
>
Hi Iñaki,

The chairs don't currently detect consensus on how signaling will be handled
for RTCWeb sessions.  We don't want to circumscribe the solution space, but
we do feel that there is a need to have concrete proposals, rather than
broad statements like, "it shouldn't be in the component X".  Concrete
proposals for how it will be handled are the best way we see to make sure
folks are coming to consensus on something they understand, rather than on
rhetoric.




> If so, I think that this should not be covered by rtcweb, which
> instead should define a good API for dealing with SDP bodies (plain or
> XML), create some kind of JavaScript object for mantaining each
> session status and information (negotiated streams, codecs,
> local/remote address...).
>
>
If you would like to make a concrete proposal for how that JavaScript object
is constructed, what it contains, and how it is shipped around, that would
be great.   Without a statement of what those details are, however, the
chairs worry that people will argue (for and against) proposals that have
not been made.

We await your electrons with great interest!

Ted


> But for sure I miss something so I would like to know what exactly are
> you looking for in your mail.
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>
>