Re: [rtcweb] Another consideration about signaling

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 10 October 2011 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 1E35F21F8C42 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.47
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 V0laNIvn-7NC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3DF21F8C31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so5914174vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.179.202 with SMTP id br10mr1436169vcb.41.1318264910872; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E930845.60809@digium.com>
References: <CALiegfmoPWfhtBRiOfgLHG1uhJK_kK2t11xMoop-fT6qW4DUJQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E8F57EB.8030504@digium.com> <CABw3bnOD5APidfbqNscXdPURyY-AMQZqoyYPm6v2xWo5VWKOLA@mail.gmail.com> <4E905B7F.7010505@digium.com> <CABw3bnN2O6zgREBoWEdW2jj6-A4df05KJ_Y49LT3tsUXaXewwA@mail.gmail.com> <4E930845.60809@digium.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:41:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfnvBADCrGuWUB57=VQ+RWyN83JbZkp7a27UvoZ+XBwVMA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming@digium.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Another consideration about signaling
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: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:41:52 -0000

2011/10/10 Kevin P. Fleming <kpfleming@digium.com>om>:
> 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
<ibc@aliax.net>