Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities

"Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 15 October 2014 10:38 UTC

Return-Path: <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241EC1A1AB8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 03:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RIgk5whWm2P8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 03:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ADFD1A1A9D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 03:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.239.2.42]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 03F2A1FA1C436; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:38:14 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id s9FAcBlA032740 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:38:14 +0200
Received: from FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.75]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:38:11 +0200
From: "Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht)" <albrecht.schwarz@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich)" <uwe.rauschenbach@nsn.com>, ext Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>, 'Christer Holmberg' <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities
Thread-Index: AQHP3t3f5D2VGYDPpkScrjp/MEhMKQEgC5NQnCfJqgCAAA6lgIAAL7/Q
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:38:10 +0000
Message-ID: <786615F3A85DF44AA2A76164A71FE1AC3418E0@FR711WXCHMBA03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <542E53D2.5040500@alvestrand.no> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D465376@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <C45C84E3-FC63-4DF6-ABDE-701FC7584E3C@alvestrand.no> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D465985@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D465A34@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <00f501cfe24a$b8515930$28f40b90$@co.in> <543418D5.8010509@alvestrand.no> <006301cfe316$6d3c5590$47b500b0$@co.in> <54363216.3060700@alvestrand.no> <010d01cfe80f$1c8e3930$55aaab90$@co.in> <56C2F665D49E0341B9DF5938005ACDF8194C0459@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net> <543E40E7.4030609@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <543E40E7.4030609@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/U8uFz9Pa1GvEkF8pZbyoy7voFl0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:38:52 -0000

I'm also reluctant using "endpoint" as qualifier for WebRTC entities because in communication networks the notion of endpoint is fundamentally tight to a protocol (layer) (see e.g. (N)-connection-endpoint in ITU-T X.200).
Now, "WebRTC" is not a single protocol, rather a suite of protocols in concert.
E.g., we got
(DTLS)-connection-endpoints,
(SCTP)-connection-endpoints,
(UDP)-connection-endpoints,
(RTP)-connection-endpoints,
etc 
within an WebRTC entity.

Two cents from my side, of course you may always expand these OSI-ISO base terms towards an (WebRTC)-endpoint (by highlighting the service access point aspects and the "(WebRTC)-connection" concept).

-Albrecht



-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Mittwoch, 15. Oktober 2014 11:40
To: Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich); ext Parthasarathi R; 'Christer Holmberg'; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities

On 10/15/2014 10:47 AM, Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> Hi Harald,
>
> I wonder whether we can simplify the set of terms by removing "WebRTC endpoint".

The reason for adding it was that it was already used in the RTCWEB RTP document, in harmony with the usage of "endpoint" in other RTP-releated specs.

I'll take others' input on whether it's worth removing the term or keeping it.

Note - from a strictly formalistic point of view, replacing all occurences of "WebRTC device" with "WebRTC endpoint" would have exactly the same effect. But the terms feel more comfortable to use in different contexts.

>
> What was the reason for introducing the term "WebRTC endpoint"? Wouldn't it be enough to have "WebRTC UA", "WebRTC device" and "WebRTC-compatible device" (plus WebRTC gateway as special widespread case of compatible device)?
>
>
> A slight change in the chain of terms in -overview-12 could reduce the number of definitions without losing meaning (I think):
>
>
> 1) A WebRTC User Agent (also called a WebRTC UA or a WebRTC browser) is something that conforms to both the protocol specification and the Javascript API defined above. A WebRTC User Agent conforms to both the protocol specification and the Javascript API.
> --> keep as is
>
> 2) A WebRTC device is something that conforms to the protocol specification, but does not claim to implement the Javascript API.
> --> replace "claim" by "have". This results in <WebRTC UA> IS-A <WebRTC device> and we can pull out "WebRTC endpoint". (This is also better in line than the current chain with the statement in the draft "All WebRTC browsers (UAs) are WebRTC devices, so any requirement on a WebRTC device also applies to a WebRTC browser"
>
> 3) A WebRTC endpoint is either a WebRTC User Agent or a WebRTC device.
> --> delete
>
> 4) A WebRTC-compatible endpoint is an endpoint that is capable of successfully communicating with a WebRTC endpoint, but may fail to meet some requirements of a WebRTC endpoint.  This may limit where in the network such an endpoint can be attached, or may limit the security guarantees that it offers to others.
> --> replace "endpoint" by "device"
>
> 5) A WebRTC gateway is a WebRTC-compatible endpoint that mediates traffic to non-WebRTC entities.
> --> replace "endpoint" by "device"
>   
> Kind regards,
> Uwe
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext 
>> Parthasarathi R
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:30 AM
>> To: 'Harald Alvestrand'; 'Christer Holmberg'; rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities
>>
>> Hi Harald,
>>
>> <snip>
>>>>> 2) It is not required to be endpoint but it shall be middle box.
>>>> What do you mean by "middle box"? Again, that term is slippery.
>>> <Partha> I intent to say that the entity which is between two 
>>> endpoints and it does not end any media session itself. Here, The 
>>> confusion is that WebRTC compatible endpoint which is not an 
>>> endpoint but it is a middle box. </Partha>
>> Seems that this entity (whatever it's called) isn't an endpoint at 
>> all, so defining terms for endpoints shouldn't be relevant to 
>> whatever this device is.
>>
>> There's always more boxes in the middle..... although as long as they 
>> don't have the DTLS keys, it's limited what they can do to the packets.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Could you please update the terminology as "WebRTC compatible device"
>> instead of WebRTC compatible endpoint as the entity is not required 
>> to be endpoint.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Partha.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 12:29 PM
>>> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Christer Holmberg'; rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities
>>>
>>> On 10/08/2014 06:39 PM, Parthasarathi R wrote:
>>>> Hi Harald,
>>>>
>>>> Please read inline.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Partha
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:16 PM
>>>>> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Christer Holmberg'; rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Definitions of WebRTC entities
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/07/2014 06:21 PM, Parthasarathi R wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Christer,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no issue with WebRTC User Agent, WebRTC device, WebRTC
>>>>> endpoint.
>>>>>> I have bit trouble with WebRTC compatible endpoint as a entity
>> name
>>>>> as
>>>>>> 1) It may pass SRTP/data channel
>>>>> What do you mean by "pass"? That's a slippery term.
>>>> <Partha> "relay" will be more appropriate term as mentioned in Sec
>> 5
>>> Para 2 of draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-gateways. </Partha>
>>>>>> 2) It is not required to be endpoint but it shall be middle box.
>>>>> What do you mean by "middle box"? Again, that term is slippery.
>>>> <Partha> I intent to say that the entity which is between two
>>> endpoints and it does not end any media session itself. Here, The 
>>> confusion is that WebRTC compatible endpoint which is not an 
>>> endpoint but it is a middle box. </Partha>
>>>
>>> Seems that this entity (whatever it's called) isn't an endpoint at
>> all,
>>> so defining terms for endpoints shouldn't be relevant to whatever
>> this
>>> device is.
>>>
>>> There's always more boxes in the middle..... although as long as 
>>> they don't have the DTLS keys, it's limited what they can do to the
>> packets.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> WebRTC gateway looks more appropriate entity name in those
>>> scenarios.
>>>>> As written in my proposal, a WebRTC gateway is a WebRTC compatible 
>>>>> endpoint.
>>>>>
>>>> <Partha> As per your proposal, we need to define WebRTC compatible
>>> endpoint first which is super set of WebRTC gateway. Then, we need 
>>> to clarify which kind of WebRTC compatible endpoint qualify as 
>>> WebRTC gateway. But Christer wishes to have only two definition
>> (Full/Subset).
>>> </Partha>
>>>
>>> And I don't agree with Christer, so then we're two :-)
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb