Re: [rtcweb] Friday Agenda: Re: Friday Call details for signaling discussion

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 20 October 2011 11:13 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 009DC21F8AB8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 04:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 bK522gnbw5wx for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 04:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC5121F8A57 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 04:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C44939E0F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:13:37 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WQHyjYKZ03nc for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:13:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (62-20-124-50.customer.telia.com [62.20.124.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED00C39E072 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:13:34 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4EA0025E.6080604@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:13:34 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CA+9kkMBQDne_p7LmH_e38NQWqjjNh0jKjuLMZrtNh10db90hYg@mail.gmail.com> <4E9E9794.8000901@alvestrand.no> <4E9FD139.2010406@ericsson.com> <CALiegfkbdXLf2E38i8ELSCsD6JOUJnWMasQuYK13BhzBwji2_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfkbdXLf2E38i8ELSCsD6JOUJnWMasQuYK13BhzBwji2_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Friday Agenda: Re: Friday Call details for signaling discussion
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: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:13:55 -0000

On 10/20/11 12:45, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/10/20 Magnus Westerlund<magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>;:
>> The proposed agenda for Firday is as follows:
>>
>> 10 min introduction from each signaling proposal:
>> - draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling-00 (ROAP) Cullen
>> - draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00 (Standard signaling protocol) Partha
>> - ? (No Protocol) ?
>>
>> In the above only clarifying questions may occur.
>>
>> 20 min discussion of each proposal
>>
>> 30 min concluding discussion
>>
>>  From my perspective both draft-beck-rtcweb-alt-ic-00 and
>> draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket-00 are relevant documents to the
>> discussion as they provides useful proposals on how interconnect and SIP
>> interop respectively can be done. But as they aren't proposals for how
>> the actual signaling solution should work. Thus these are homework but
>> don't get presentation time.
> Hi Magnus. Honestly I don't consider that discussing about
> draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket-00 should take place. It's just a
> suggestion about a signaling protocol in RTCweb (in this case pure SIP
> over WebSocket). It's not my aim that the WG considers such spec as a
> standard signaling for RTCweb. Well, this is basically the same you
> have said :)
>
> In the other said, I'd really would like that, before the meeting, all
> the folks could take some time to read:
>
>    http://public.aliax.net/RTCweb_Signaling_Components.html
> and
>    http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg02158.html
>
> This means not wasting time if somebody proposes ROAP as a "default
> signaling protocol" because ROAP is not that and cannot do that (more
> info in the given links). Also, given the general confusion when the
> term "signaling" appears in this WG, I've tryied to clarify its
> meaning(s) in RTCweb context (first link).
>
> For those who advocate for a "default signaling protocol", I hope
> second link should make them to re-think about what such erroneous
> decision would entail in current and *existing* WWW world.
While I may quibble with Inaki about the terminology he proposes, I 
think I support what he's driving at in the "components" Web page.

In the -overview-02 draft section 7, the term "media negotiations" is 
used for what he calls "media signalling"; it is trying to get at the 
same distinction.

In his category of "info signalling", I would quibble a bit in that I 
see "channel-related signalling" (a term I just invented, describing 
which media is sent on which SSRC on which port) as distinct from 
"identity-related signalling", where the whole question of "who am I 
talking to" is relevant.

I believe "channel-related signalling" needs to be treated together with 
"media signalling".