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

Randell Jesup <> Tue, 20 September 2011 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF4811E8073 for <>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 23:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.615
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QXTRZ3odCrYI for <>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 23:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05DD11E8083 for <>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 23:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1R5u2b-0007ve-5r for; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:42:49 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 02:39:24 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
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: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 06:40:26 -0000

On 9/20/2011 1:59 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>> I agree with you in case you wish to have all class 5 services in this architecture. In the web game server wherein the basic call has to be established between two parties, this complexity is not required.
> OK, let's take the game example... only 2-player games would be able to use a simple rtcweb-SIP agent.  Anything more than 2-player would want to use the multi-party "conferencing" model of rtcweb, which can't even be signaled with SIP today as far as I can tell. (not that I've thought about it too much, but I can't see how it would without some changes to SIP)

It should be easy - either as N-1 2-person calls to the person hosting the game, or
N calls via a central server (equivalent to a mixer), or as a full mesh of direct
calls (3 2-person calls for a 3-person game, 6 for a 4-person game, etc), or even
sparse meshes (makes sense in a game where not all players are 'near' each other).

>> One of the main aim of the RTCWeb default signaling protocol is to make two party real-time communication easy with less development effort for any web developer.
> Why doesn't using JS libraries provide that ease of development, assuming there's a good "signaling agent" JS library for whatever communication model the deployer wants/needs?  If there isn't a good JS library, then one would wonder why we think all browsers will have a good built-in signaling agent instead.

Well, there are a lot more available C/C++ SIP libraries than JS SIP libraries
(I've heard of one non-open-I-assume one under development), to start with.
The same applies to XMPP (one known implementation - may not be free), etc.  Let
alone well-tested and used JS SIP/etc libraries.  Yes, we could develop them.  I
don't see that as being easier than developing the equivalent in C++, assuming
you decided to start both efforts from scratch - and one may well not have to
start from scratch.

Randell Jesup