[rtcweb] Just browser-browser and browser-"gateway"? is this an RTCweb assumption?

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Fri, 13 April 2012 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E9C21F8763 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.057, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t57hC3yIlsSG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FFA21F875C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhkk25 with SMTP id k25so1726344yhk.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=NT86fZs3y/LsESxErvEpqrxZM9PxUeNNjP6GvLW0ThM=; b=lqnNo7Wu9ZqTkVgUdESSv+advcVfDdvWlBc0vGtuSv3Bg9Ihy7z/9FRzH4O5zCL3G/ ljP2Qb5mCMCsyy9ZHPDGxJYAU0PRaSkNWfV9dZARhfixWk/suPWv+Jb5QXGQCHllPdp5 /nnUgM6CAUL0g+B42KN5nZpRYpHL86l6IaRkbIdv710btQcY1G7mzn2KTmQeZ7x5Tos8 yD9khrNr6kmoq0Nzy8/NOEmZJwD+pJrj9sVGl4uH9h2JUMnWRAGNIk969872zxa8n7bJ NVvJTQwPvpah8lY1kuOWD3cITsU/HmNS3aEgNDkRtnSKV7RLU50Ic59TUSDSTaOR5iE3 g1xA==
Received: by with SMTP id f6mr393676ani.7.1334316836024; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 04:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:33:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegf=uDMycijcC+V6e+T0T8ZPkDvH1+TZS6rQ4BKXBU=+dJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlsNwQIjCoElD7+tRQvvAXIP1voLA/+08B9qj/ecUGb9VNGagbm9QkSOwfbkly0sqGIaWNz
Subject: [rtcweb] Just browser-browser and browser-"gateway"? is this an RTCweb assumption?
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: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:33:57 -0000

Hi, by reading RTCWeb Minutes IETF 83 [1] it seems that most of the
folks here assume that WebRTC *media* communication can be done in two

  1) browser to browser (perhaps with a TURN server)
  2) browser to gateway

So... what about browser to SIP phone and browser to XMPP/Jingle
endpoint (assuming ICE and SDES-SRTP support)?

IMHO assuming that a media gateway is required for any browser to
non-browser media communication is an artificial limitation. If so,
why does RTCweb makes use of RTP and SDP? why not creating its own
"media streaming protocol for RTCweb"?

I hope this subject is clarified and such an assumption relaxed.
Interoperability (*whithout* media gateways) is a good feature and
makes RTCweb adoption easier. Not all the people interested in RTCweb
are gateways vendors.

NOTE: I do *not* mean supporting plain and insecure RTP.


[1] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-rtcweb.htm

Iñaki Baz Castillo