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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Fri, 07 October 2011 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.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 8A80021F8AE1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 04:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.493
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 8wdBfTO7Ng+a for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 04:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADBF521F8ADC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 04:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail07.sonusnet.com (sonusmail07.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.157]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p97Bj6A5029238; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:45:07 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail07.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 07:40:37 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC84E5.ECC3BC89"
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 17:10:33 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1532@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABRok6mM7TfbLgGhoQvdRh1Kwoi5BhRweLcqWg7VZOFnaa8VOw@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AcyE4qD5UD7fvzOgSPm3DPa/g76PuAAAsrMQ
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>
From: "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: "Neil Stratford" <neils@belltower.co.uk>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2011 11:40:37.0395 (UTC) FILETIME=[EEB26E30:01CC84E5]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
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 11:41:24 -0000

Neil,

 

<snip> 

In my view the only option for a standardised signaling protocol for
RTCweb *would* be something entirely new that met the specific needs of
the environment. 

</snip>

 

Browser to browser real time communication is no different from other
real-time communication apart from the existing web infrastructure. In
case your argument is to use the existing web infrastructure like
websocket, I agree with you.

 

But in case it is not the reason, Could you please list the reason for
new signaling protocol requirement . 

 

Thanks

Partha

 

From: neils@vipadia.com [mailto:neils@vipadia.com] On Behalf Of Neil
Stratford
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 4:47 PM
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
Cc: samuel; Tim Panton; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
protocol

 

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi
<pravindran@sonusnet.com>; wrote:

	At this moment, I don't think that there is a need for
developing new signaling protocol for RTCweb. IMO, The argument may be
which is best suitable rather than none of the protocol is suitable.

In my view the only option for a standardised signalling protocol for
RTCweb *would* be something entirely new that met the specific needs of
the environment. 

 

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