Re: [rtcweb] A plea for simplicity, marketability - and... who are we designing RTCWEB for?

Cullen Jennings <> Thu, 20 October 2011 02:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3772E1F0C59 for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.038
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.561, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RrcIklncbSQ6 for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F721F0C4B for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1268; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1319076806; x=1320286406; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=0vn7JdtsCWxtFEdU4eO5nLqtvpsN06iavrKtW8AY+Ak=; b=KaaWonwaUsPFTsr/As/FfoweOFpQmAZJJaaPugwHVT8HZ9hk9J602Bx0 +qwIYGoXRacMfgN7OECTK6ZQawfFv7KxTcEk/i179jZONGXHwmWQmkIS/ HSxVBF2GzZagaDubEedb42iMBTPo7J0WXIlRytjDUEcdrXX9knQV+Korz w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAKCDn06rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABEqQOBBYFuAQEBAQIBEgEnPwULC0ZXBjWHXpdkAZ5OhzphBIgCi3yFKoxM
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,375,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="8996602"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2011 02:13:26 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9K2DPi0008100; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:13:25 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <>
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W43CB8DACCEA54AA5558B2493EA0@phx.gbl>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:13:25 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <BLU152-W43CB8DACCEA54AA5558B2493EA0@phx.gbl>
To: Bernard Aboba <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A plea for simplicity, marketability - and... who are we designing RTCWEB for?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:13:27 -0000

On Oct 19, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> However, if we are opening the RANT queue, I do have a concern that relates to IETF RTCWEB.  And that is the number of dependencies that are piling up, even for simple scenarios.  Fundamentally, many of the issues we have been talking about arise from the need to support peer-to-peer media.  This is what drives the need for ICE (so recipient can authorize sending of media),  end-to-end security (e.g. to know/authorize where P2P media is going),  and to some extend DoS and congestion control functionality.   While I understand the need for P2P support, we do need to avoid imposing all of these dependencies in simple client/server scenarios.  For example, if all a developer wants to do is send media and signalling down a websocket, many of the concerns arising from P2P media evaporate.  When operating within the "single origin" model, it should be possible to maintain a very high degree of legacy interop, with no requirements for ICE, e2e security, etc.  

Bernard, let me just make sure I have this right. You are proposing all the voice and video going from browser A to browser B should be sent over TCP (via websockets) through the web server?