Re: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket subprotocol - JSEP over websockets

[Sergio Garcia Murillo <[e-mail]>]

+1

On 03/12/2014 20:07, Roman Shpount wrote:
> Ranjit,
>
> If you want to create yet another signaling protocol which uses 
> WebSockets as a transport, please do. No one is stopping you. Just 
> don't call it JSEP. Signaling is very different from JSEP, does a lot 
> more then JSEP and requires a lot of effort to design properly and 
> then map to JSEP API. If you create something compelling, other people 
> will implement it and standardize it. At this point, I do not think 
> this group is interested in creating yet another signaling protocol. I 
> do not think this is something which is covered by this group charter.
>
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:57 PM, <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello all
>
>     While I agree SIP over Websockets is default signaling protocol
>     for WebRTC while working with IMS, there could be scenarios where
>     WebRTC calls can get initiated from non SIP UAs like web browsers
>     which do not support SIP. Then in such cases, the following things
>     could happen
>     1) the WebRTC client on the browser can use JSEP to send its
>     signaling information over WebSocket,
>     2) the JSEP message would then land on the WebRTC GW over WS.
>     3) This JSEP message would then be converted to a SIP message and
>     then sent to IMS core.
>     4) within IMS core, its a regular SIP message
>     5) Again in the reverse direction, WebRTC GW would convert SIP to JSEP
>     6) JSEP message is sent over Websocket to UE.
>
>     now we see JSEP messages getting exchanged over Websockets. so if
>     the websocket sub-protocol does not define the type as "jsep",
>     then the WebRTC GW would not know the incoming message type and
>     hence may discard it or its behavior may be uncertain.
>
>     Also the JSEP message needs to be enhanced to add more message
>     types (along with current OFFER / ANSWER) to be able to map it
>     with standard signaling protocol like SIP as defined in
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-partha-rtcweb-jsep-sip-01
>
>     Regards
>     Ranjit
>
>     On 2014-12-03 12:40 pm, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) wrote:
>
>         + 1 for using SIP over WebSocket.
>
>         FROM: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>] ON BEHALF OF Roman
>         Shpount
>          SENT: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 12:38 PM
>          TO: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>          CC: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>          SUBJECT: Re: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket
>         subprotocol -
>         JSEP over websockets
>
>         Is there any reason you cannot use SIP over WebSocket
>         (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7118 [1])?
>
>         Call signaling will require a lot more information then what is
>         provided in JSEP. JSEP mostly deals with offer and answer
>         processing.
>         Signaling will also need to deal with things like who is
>         calling, why
>         they are calling, transfers, other application specific
>         details. In
>         other words, I think this is a very bad idea.
>
>         _____________
>          Roman Shpount
>
>         On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM, <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         Hi
>          With websockets as a de-facto transport protocol for WebRTC
>         signaling
>         and JSEP being the format of encoding information, there is a
>         need for
>         a defining a websocket sub-protocol : jsep. So I would like to
>         know if
>         there is any interest in the community and also the views from
>         experts
>         about the need for a websocket-sub protocol for JSEP.
>
>          The main purpose of defining the sub protocol (jsep) is to
>         make sure
>         that the WebRTC client (WIC) and WebRTC server (E-CSCF) are
>         receiving
>         JSEP encoded messages.
>
>          Thanks
>          Ranjit
>
>          _______________________________________________
>          rtcweb mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb [2]
>
>
>
>         Links:
>         ------
>         [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7118
>         [2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb