[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 []) 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-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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (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 []) 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 []) 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 [] ( by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; 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


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)

b) RTCWeb standard signaling protocol

We also have a third proposal that want to be included in the
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

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

2) WebSocket Transport for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

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.


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