Re: [rtcweb] Another consideration about signaling

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2011/10/10 Kevin P. Fleming <[e-mail]>:
> In this situation, if the XYZ application wants to display the states of
> other sessions, it will have to have some API between itself and the
> communications server (the browser is not involved here) in order to monitor
> (and potentially control) those sessions. This allows the web application
> developer to be completely insulated from the signaling protocol that is
> used, and instead just use an API provided by the communications server in
> order to track and control communications sessions. Thus, the choice of
> signaling protocol is irrelevant, as long as a hypothetical web application
> developer can find and use a suitable communications server that implements
> the chosen protocol *and* provides adequate APIs for the web application to
> fulfill its requirements.

Hi Kevin. Yes. In fact, in case the signaling is carried via
WebSocket, the WebSocket server could be a separate server (not
colocated within the web server) so you get the web server and the
signaling server in different servers (and you would need some kind of
proprietary communication between them in order for the web server to
get the sessions status).

But that's changes nothing in the design on RTCweb IMHO.

Regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>