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

[Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb