Re: [rtcweb] Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02 (Browser RTC trapezoid)

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Wed, 19 October 2011 22:04 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 1850411E8096 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.659
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.360, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 Cfon3rE5jyTO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8052A11E808A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail04.sonusnet.com (sonusmail04.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.98]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9JM5Oi6012242; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:05:24 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail04.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:04:49 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:34:43 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159AA7@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <23CC8E74-8C17-4484-998B-2A7B66358B81@ag-projects.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02 (Browser RTC trapezoid)
Thread-Index: AcyOqaG5ZImNm9GsQW+sxDvEwl0KqAAALIBw
References: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF511599F9@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E9E5D8D.6030707@alvestrand.no><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159A20@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfk+Ezaz2Y4kFkooSozJsDyZZWxqdpX=fec==PYzBHm-bw@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159AA6@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <23CC8E74-8C17-4484-998B-2A7B66358B81@ag-projects.com>
From: "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <saul@ag-projects.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Oct 2011 22:04:49.0674 (UTC) FILETIME=[1EF3AEA0:01CC8EAB]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02 (Browser RTC trapezoid)
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: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:04:54 -0000

Saul,

I have already mentioned in the mailing alias that *Please don't delete the existing mail* because we often miss the original intent of the mail and goes in the circular discussion.

My original reply was intended only to answer Inaki query on how I come to the conclusion that "I'm not favor Inaki solution of SIP over websocket because it is overkill for signaling protocol". 

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé [mailto:saul@ag-projects.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:24 AM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Iñaki Baz Castillo; rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02 (Browser
>RTC trapezoid)
>
>Hi,
>
>On Oct 19, 2011, at 11:39 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>
>> Inaki,
>>
>> There are fundamentally two aspects in RTCWeb:
>>
>> 1) (on-wire) protocol mechanism - How protocol is designed between
>RTCWeb client (browser) and RTCWeb server, RTCWeb client and RTCWeb
>client. The protocol design does not focus on RTCWeb client only but
>also in RTCWeb server because the protocol has to be implemented in both
>entities. IOW, it is not 20 lines of JavaScript but impact of RTCWeb
>server design has to be noted as well. Here IETF has significant role
>and it has to come up with best protocol design between RTCWeb entities.
>>
>> 2) API design (JavaScript in browser) - Browser provides RTCWeb client
>framework and exposes its API as JavaScript and JavaScript is the
>language/script of choice for browsers. The interaction is between
>browser and JavaScript only. IMO, W3C plays the vital role in coming up
>with best API set and also, there is no on-wire stuff here. Here, the
>discussion focus is whether low level API or ROAP API or any other high
>level API. Of course, I have less experience in JavaScript based API
>design. Please note that I have designed and worked in protocol
>framework in other languages like C, TCL.
>>
>
>If point 2, the JS API is flexible enough there is no need for a new
>protocol design, we can reuse an existing one and use the JS API for the
>media layer. I've lost count on the number of times this has already
>been said, lets move on.
>
>> My comment on "SIP over websocket is an overkill" is purely based on
>(on-wire) protocol mechanism and it is nothing do with API design.
>Irrespective of whether "SIP over websocket" is implemented in browser
>or in JavaScript or in other language, it is not the best protocol
>design. Hope this clarifies my stance.
>>
>
>Nobody is advocating for SIP over WebSocket nor XMPP over PBTL (pigeon
>based transport layer), what some of us want is to let it up to the
>developers.
>
>--
>Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
>AG Projects
>
>