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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <> Wed, 19 October 2011 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1850411E8096 for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.659
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cfon3rE5jyTO for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8052A11E808A for <>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9JM5Oi6012242; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:05:24 -0400
Received: from ([]) by 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: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02 (Browser RTC trapezoid)
Thread-Index: AcyOqaG5ZImNm9GsQW+sxDvEwl0KqAAALIBw
References: <><><> <> <> <>
From: "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Oct 2011 22:04:49.0674 (UTC) FILETIME=[1EF3AEA0:01CC8EAB]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02 (Browser RTC trapezoid)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:04:54 -0000


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". 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé []
>Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:24 AM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Iñaki Baz Castillo;
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02 (Browser
>RTC trapezoid)
>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
>Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
>AG Projects