[rtcweb] Current state of signaling discussion

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Tue, 18 October 2011 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 33FA821F8B9C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 L63HHm+QzQqd for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (mailgw10.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59BDC21F8B9B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3d-b7c26ae0000035b9-e2-4e9d773dc9a4
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw10.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 27.38.13753.D377D9E4; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:55:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:55:25 +0200
Message-ID: <4E9D773A.4010705@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:55:22 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [rtcweb] Current state of 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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:55:27 -0000

WG,

This is an attempt of me as WG chair to try to summarize the state of
the discussion as it was when I wrote this. As usual please speak up
against any miss-characterization of the state from my side.

The Chairs request for identifying who like to provide input for a
signaling discussion two weeks and to follow up this with a Internet
draft has resulted in that we now have two drafts.

a) RTCWeb Offer/Answer Protocol (ROAP)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling/

b) RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling/

We also have a third proposal that want to be included in the
considerations:
c) RTCWEB does not define any signaling behavior at all, instead W3C is
tasked to develop an API that allows the application to establish the
media session between peers.

I have as WG chair requested that the proponents for C to produce a
Internet draft that provides requirements on the API and its capability.
This is to ensure that this proposal can be properly evaluated. So far
no such contribution has occurred. Without a willingness from the
proponents of this style of solution to contribute and evolve their
thinking in such way that the other WG members can gain a better
understanding of the implications of this solution I find it difficult
for us include it in the up coming consensus call.

We intended to have a phone conference on Friday to enable some direct
discussion on the topic of signaling between the WG members. Details to
follow. This is not an interim, only a possibility for the WG members to
further their understanding in preparation for the decision.

In addition to signaling proposals the WG have received two other I-Ds.

1) Real-Time Web Communication Simplified Interconnection
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-beck-rtcweb-alt-ic/

Which I interpret as a discussion piece around the federation and
interconnect usages.

2) WebSocket Transport for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket/

This is a demonstration that SIP could be implemented in Java script and
be transported over web-socket to enable the cases where SIP want to be
used between a browser instance and a SIP system and its user agents.
This has some requirements on the API to either provide SDP in O/A style
or something that enables the SIP stack to create SIP messages with SDP
O/A messages.

There has been lively discussion around these documents which I hope
continues but it does need to come to some conclusions.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------