IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Tue, 20 September 2011 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.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 7018921F84D1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 JcttG53iATLH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE19F21F845D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:56:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL2.acmepacket.com (10.0.0.22) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:59:11 -0400
Received: from MAIL1.acmepacket.com ([169.254.1.150]) by Mail2.acmepacket.com ([169.254.2.157]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:59:11 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
Thread-Index: AQHMd1pqLHvBWHS2NkWGn3FMeQaTYw==
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 05:59:10 +0000
Message-ID: <C55E752E-18FD-402C-A7DE-1627813B3F6D@acmepacket.com>
References: <CALiegfnOCxyTo9ffQ272+ncdu5UdgrtDT-dn10BWGTZMEjZoCg@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C0A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><05CAC192-E462-421F-B1E5-B78DC8F60306@ag-projects.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C93@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><16880306-5B3A-4EFD-ADE4-1201138D9182@acmepacket.com><8584590C8D7DD141AA96D01920FC6C698C896B71@gbplmail03.genband.com><CA+9kkMAwnnKKO5+q6ey4Z0QNxax1QF21vVtw8FNsHy_rmfenjQ@mail.gmail.com><4E76E078.5020708@jesup.org><8548CBBD-4E12-48F3-BC59-341FF45EF22F@acmepacket.com><4E77495E.4000409@jesup.org><CALiegfkTdCAeEdZbXP1Y9L6i4Anjrgf1CG6ZNj35WGoHL3p_Ew@mail.gmail.com><4E774F92.4040405@jesup.org><8ECCEE59-E855-4EA9-92B9-543D1585B1F0@ag-projects.com><4E778F1F.9090105@jesup.org><CEA0AC9E-6387-4066-95DC-0D70302E80A7@ag-projects.com><4E77C3EC.9060801@jesup.org> <CAD5OKxtciYxaVpb7b3G9yMg1A97b9dkjkOpppZcSRzS5SAO3+A@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0DD8@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0DD8@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [216.41.24.34]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <751649407B8B3049B32AF273FA73206A@acmepacket.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAWE=
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
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, 20 Sep 2011 05:56:47 -0000

On Sep 20, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:

> I agree with you in case you wish to have all class 5 services in this architecture. In the web game server wherein the basic call has to be established between two parties, this complexity is not required.

OK, let's take the game example... only 2-player games would be able to use a simple rtcweb-SIP agent.  Anything more than 2-player would want to use the multi-party "conferencing" model of rtcweb, which can't even be signaled with SIP today as far as I can tell. (not that I've thought about it too much, but I can't see how it would without some changes to SIP)



> One of the main aim of the RTCWeb default signaling protocol is to make two party real-time communication easy with less development effort for any web developer.

Why doesn't using JS libraries provide that ease of development, assuming there's a good "signaling agent" JS library for whatever communication model the deployer wants/needs?  If there isn't a good JS library, then one would wonder why we think all browsers will have a good built-in signaling agent instead. 

-hadriel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email