Re: [rtcweb] RTT Education: Neat Demonstration of NON-peer-to-peer RTT (for future webrtc standardization purposes)

Mark Rejhon <> Fri, 31 May 2013 19:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0609221F853A for <>; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id beskIn52Snwg for <>; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::235]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43B2221F8319 for <>; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p13so1296820vbe.26 for <>; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=ARCld37uDJkGRSlZVFmye7vNZDZKGMMdvrfaTdFIP2A=; b=qrSy8DGQGxf2EP2FgAUqzD1sGnmYiFKlbT+CQYq95SaJnBlYw/R5uSFvpLPm0Pmxq8 KcVslK03hAL2ka/3dcf+hPdUdlPDBBthMZpz8ClcIhv9aQ9TsZjrgbH6RoXRbhQEHynP Qr0WUy3V1hoUSxG1AWFUO8ZkGWuU72z+rQqLr0+iRzqTtjUScpk/9ZPlYx9GXvFBlcuq /xsk4XcWHzN4nkmVuffz50gZ3X6pfj3MKFdbC29agxiNxmnJ/u52QuOad0BGuE80l19e mehaxIUKCfK48BTuejnKpZxhceQhzjAYbgmsdyc24/gr1nHmaT+jMuEQtz6fEEa+2ykd HFyg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id i20mr4487841vdu.69.1370028738194; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:31:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Mark Rejhon <>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:31:57 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Adam Roach <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f39b045b60904de08acf0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTT Education: Neat Demonstration of NON-peer-to-peer RTT (for future webrtc standardization purposes)
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: Fri, 31 May 2013 19:32:21 -0000

Actually, it's not quite that simple.

Some countries made RFC4103 part of their government legislation.
There are two open real-time text standards that is necessary to make
provisions for, to cover world-wide usage.

Everytime SIP is used for anything, it should always use RFC4013.
If WebRTC implementations touch SIP and not XMPP, and utilize real-time
text, then it needs to use RFC4103, even if it has to use the sockets
feature.  Thus, we need to make sure that it's also usable for RFC4103.
So it's not a 100% solved problem; there is still a SIP need.

Mark Rejhon

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Adam Roach <> wrote:

> Mark:
> This is all very neat. To be clear about what's being shown here:
>  * This does not use RFC 4103 RTT-over-RTP
>  * This text is transmitted over a traditional XMPP
>    client->server->server->client architecture
> Correct? If so -- and if this is being held out as a preferred technology
> for RTT -- then this is great news. As is shown by numerous live
> deployments (Gmail, Facebook, LiveJournal IM, etc), the model of [JS
> Client]->[Web Server]->[XMPP Server]->[XMPP Client] works quite well, and
> has been supported by existing web technologies since at least 2006.
> I'm glad to have a demonstration that this is a solved problem that we
> don't need to make special provisions for. Thanks.
> /a