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

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Fri, 07 October 2011 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.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 4F2E621F86D0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 pMFLj9SsKr9u for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A789821F86C1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL2.acmepacket.com (10.0.0.22) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:50:23 -0400
Received: from MAIL1.acmepacket.com ([169.254.1.230]) by Mail2.acmepacket.com ([169.254.2.157]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:50:23 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AQHMhSH3WAYm6sWfE0aVzRoo8GFJXQ==
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 18:50:22 +0000
Message-ID: <1636CB96-8B00-4387-8ED2-9B74EB818E45@acmepacket.com>
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>
In-Reply-To: <CABRok6mM7TfbLgGhoQvdRh1Kwoi5BhRweLcqWg7VZOFnaa8VOw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [216.41.24.34]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <AD8F771CCBE48F4480BA2DFD4363B6BF@acmepacket.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAWE=
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: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 18:47:11 -0000

Neil makes an excellent point which has only been briefly brought up but should be made more explicit: picking a standard signaling protocol for the Browser to implement is only half the problem - the other half of the problem is the Web Server has to implement it too, tie it into a location database, possibly with authentication and authorization policy rules, and whatever else the specific Web application needs.

There is no "20 lines of code" solution once you realize that.  It may be 20 lines of JavaScript, but that's only part of the problem/solution.  In fact, the most likely way to get to 20 lines of code for the Web Server owner is for him/her to use a public JS library for signaling which is paired with a web server module written for that specific JS library.

-hadriel


On Oct 7, 2011, at 7:16 AM, Neil Stratford wrote:

> 
> If we did go down the hypothetical new standard protocol route (which I really think we shouldn't) my requirements would be:
> - No server side infrastructure (SIP proxies etc) to maintain or configure.
> - No special understanding in the server side web application beyond discovering peer identities you might want to communicate with.
> 
> Which would lead to something looking like a browser maintained peer to peer network, at which point we are re-inventing the web, which sounds like something beyond this group. So I strongly support not picking a default and instead encourage some innovation at the javascript level.
> 
> Neil
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb