Re: [rtcweb] My Opinion: Why I think a negotiating protocol is a Good Thing

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 18 October 2011 18:00 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 54FE421F8513 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, 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 Dr3HZR-h4ybT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3556721F8593 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791571EC026; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:00:45 +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 xDofDaAzdIFn; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:00:44 +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 C21881EC025; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:00:44 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E9DBECC.6000206@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:00:44 +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: Wolfgang Beck <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com>
References: <4E9D667A.2040703@alvestrand.no> <CAAJUQMhUh5XiFh8rpg=Xag_F_Vm5tuVE5yRnArxzcd6sXb-=Kw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAJUQMhUh5XiFh8rpg=Xag_F_Vm5tuVE5yRnArxzcd6sXb-=Kw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] My Opinion: Why I think a negotiating protocol is a Good Thing
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:00:48 -0000

On 10/18/11 19:54, Wolfgang Beck wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Harald Alvestrand<harald@alvestrand.no>;  wrote:
>
>
>> The context of RTCWEB is the well known trapezoid:
>>
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>> | Web | | Web |
>> | | Signalling | |
>> | |-------------| |
>> | Server | path | Server |
>> | | | |
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>> / \
>> / \ Proprietary over
>> / \ HTTP/Websockets
>> / \
>> / Proprietary over \
>> / HTTP/Websockets \
>> / \
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>> |JS/HTML/CSS| |JS/HTML/CSS|
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>> | | | |
>> | | | |
>> | Browser | ------------------------- | Browser |
>> | | Media path | |
>> | | | |
>> +-----------+ +-----------+
>>
>> or even the triangle, where the triangle is formed when the two Web severs
>> on top are collapsed into one.
> I'll nag you again about my draft where there is only one single web
> server and one JS client that runs on both browsers.
> If you can make sure that all parties in a call use the same RTCWEB
> server and -client, you don't need to standardize a protocol.
I disagree with both of your assertions.

1) we have to support both the case of one web server and the case of 2 
web servers.

2) when there is only one web server, one of the browsers is Firefox and 
the other one is Chrome, the JS needs to have a standard means of 
communication with the browser. This means a standard.
I have explained in my long note why I think it makes sense to describe 
this as a protocol.
> We startet RCTWEB to overcome the slow innovation pace associated with
> protocol standardization.
> If RTCWEB relies on a standardized protocol for its key functionality,
> we have gained very little.
>
>> Another design criterion is that interworking should be possible
> I'm not convinced that we need this, at least not at the signaling
> level of RTCWEB clients and servers.
I agree that we disagree.
>
> Wolfgang Beck
>