Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol

"Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com> Tue, 18 October 2011 13:17 UTC

Return-Path: <tasveren@sonusnet.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 C415121F899F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 UKBRANtLsulq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B7F21F8997 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail04.sonusnet.com (sonusmail04.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.98]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9IDHXr1024899; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:17:33 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:16:57 -0400
Message-ID: <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E703DBF614@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <1F2A2C70609D9E41844A2126145FC09804004302@HKGMBOXPRD22.polycom.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AcyNY9RKUZtq4/TvTF2m8ihYBiTuMwACTO9QAAD+IPAACbPC0A==
References: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E8AC222.4050308@alvestrand.no><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14CE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CALiegf=ejF2kUC1m=74o9eprF1M8wYtgE-Crwa1x14rzDOf+gQ@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14FD@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><393F1888-F834-4DAE-B6B1-1C5D35EE3292@phonefromhere.com><CAOg=WDcC9t2KhQUg0gDJ60gO_2mNyMv9HKt=otCdPDfj4TnoTg@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F152B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CABRok6mM7TfbLgGhoQvdRh1Kwoi5BhRweLcqWg7VZOFnaa8VOw@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1532@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CABRok6n33QK0Si1Y0kT7+U0zgAWsJ4d5GENK_KL-JPx5a4erYg@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF511598EE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><665A16AB-AAD8-42B3-AC17-7E629EA2DE35@phonefromhere.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5115992E@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CALiegfmrncjsLVSiWk0tEgzwB00YaBGiqj0SDf9JTm9p1ZNoVA@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F3 8 6A979B F 51159950@so nusinmail02.sonusnet.com><0950F0E1-6E4B-407F-9563-654AFE79F64B@ag-projects.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159994@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <1F2A2C70609D9E41844A2126145FC09804004302@HKGMBOXPRD22.polycom.com>
From: "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com>
To: "Avasarala, Ranjit" <Ranjit.Avasarala@Polycom.com>, "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <saul@ag-projects.com>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:17:32 -0000

Yes, something "simple" would be nice but the definition of "simple enough but still allowing me to do what I want to achieve" is very much dependent on the needs of each specific use case/service. There is no universal definition of "simple" here. So, I guess this is yet another argument in favor of not standardizing the protocol between browser and webserver so that everybody can design/use whatever is "simple but good enough" from their perspective.

Thanks,
Tolga

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Avasarala, Ranjit
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:38 AM
> To: Ravindran Parthasarathi; Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
> protocol
> 
> That's the whole issue. We need some mechanism for web browsers to
> negotiate offer/answer and ICE candidates between each other. Using SIP
> for this over websockets would bring in unnecessary overheads. But we
> still need some mechanism. So something which is "simple" is needed.
> 
> Regards
> Ranjit
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Ravindran Parthasarathi
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:46 PM
> To: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
> protocol
> 
> Saul,
> 
> One minor correction in your mail: I have mentioned "SIP over websocket"
> is an overkill and not SIP.
> 
> Thanks
> Partha
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé [mailto:saul@ag-projects.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:32 PM
> >To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
> >Cc: Iñaki Baz Castillo; rtcweb@ietf.org
> >Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
> >protocol
> >
> >
> >On Oct 17, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
> >
> >> The point to be noted is folks put forth the same argument again &
> >again..each time, it is not possible to come up new answer ;-) I noticed
> >often you complain as if your important is missed out. We are arguing
> >only about "nothing" vs "something" as a RTCWeb signaling protocol.
> >>
> >> I clearly explained why SIP over websocket is an overkill in the below
> >mail thread. Please read it and don't argue that it is working. All the
> >working stuff is not good. Infact for any protocol, the first idea pop-
> >up is to tunnel the complete inside (For Ex: ISUP over SIP) but always
> >better ways to solve it.
> >>
> >
> >Let me connect the dots: you are advocating for a new 'simple' protocol
> >instead of taking an existing one, SIP for example, which you called
> >'overkill'. And earlier in this thread you mentioned that you are
> >interested in gateways.
> >
> >I now understand what you are trying to do.
> >
> >--
> >Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
> >AG Projects
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb