Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Mon, 19 September 2011 06:27 UTC
Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
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 545DA21F8B14 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, 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 f3WE-XNiiiGR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9616821F8B2E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-173-49-141-165.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.141.165] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1R5XML-0003OL-Bl for rtcweb@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 01:29:41 -0500
Message-ID: <4E76E078.5020708@jesup.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 02:26:00 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/6.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAwnnKKO5+q6ey4Z0QNxax1QF21vVtw8FNsHy_rmfenjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
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: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 06:27:20 -0000
+1 (comments below in-line) On 9/16/2011 4:43 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Jim McEachern > <jim.mceachern@genband.com <mailto:jim.mceachern@genband.com>> wrote: > > Hadriel, > Well said. > > Your closing paragraph sums it up nicely in my mind. > > <snip> > The only thing we need to do for rtcweb is make sure the RTP > library built into the browser supports media in such a way that > it can communicate with other RTP peers at a media plane, > regardless of what signaling protocol those peers might be using, > preferably without going through media gateways. And ... we need > to make sure it's possible to use SIP on the rtcweb server.... > </snip> > > > I think there is more to it than this for it to be a success. We have > to make sure that it is relatively easy to adopt rtcweb in javascript > applications. The way we've discussed that in the past was "2 party > video chat in 20 lines of javascript". If a novel signalling > protocol is created every time, that won't be a practical choice. > Even if the signalling is segmented into libraries, the app will have > to download the one in use by a particular website, potentially every > time. This is better than a plugin in some ways and potentially > actually worse in others. I agree whole-heartedly. My (and I'll say Mozilla's) position is that we believe that while enabling unique new signalling and negotiation makes interesting new applications possible, we also must make sure that this ability is equally available to a (say) games developer who wants to add voice or video chat to their game without having to learn or understand 20 years of discussions and experience with signalling and media protocols. The point was made repeatedly when I explained this primary area of contention that we want it to be easy to use by the "little guys", and that even if signalling was a downloaded JS library, you'd end up with a wild mixture of old versions in use, which may complicate interop/federation (plus the overhead to pull them down, and some possible security issues). > > We also have to make sure that the resulting application does not > flood or fry the network. That means it will have to have real > congestion control mechanisms. Trusting the javascript application > for that has some real issues which we've already discussed. > Splitting signaling and congestion control isn't a lot better. If > congestion control at the network level is managed by the browser but > signalling is in the javascript, then information about that state has > to pass into the JS application, so it can manage the signalling. > That makes the APIs more complex and runs the risk that a naive > javascript application will not adjust to the congestion control > requirements at all. I think we do want to optionally include the JS application in the decisions about bit allocation, but handle it automatically for most cases. A class of complex WebRTC apps will want to be able to allocate the bits themselves, and in some cases drop or add streams (or switch operation modes) in response to bandwidth changes. Details to be determined; I plan to make a proposal on this. However, unless you go out of your way none of this will impinge on your straightforward WebRTC app. > > The early web took off in part because of the ease of embedding things > like images (compared to gopher, for example) into rich content. We > have the opportunity to create native web applications with much > richer and more interactive experiences with rtcweb, but if it is not > easy to do, it won't have the same impact. If this is something that > can be done only by folks who can roll their own signalling protocol, > it's dead, because the number of content authors is too small. If it > even requires selecting among an unbounded set of variously maintained > libraries , it will be frustrating for the developer of simple > applications. At that level, the existing plugins will simply be > more stable and better known. +1 > > Providing baseline APIs into a well-known signaling capability seems > to me far more likely to result in a real flowering of rtcweb > content. That's why I want it. > > Just my two cents, not taken from any hat, > > Ted > -- Randell Jesup randell-ietf@jesup.org
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Bernard Aboba
- [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol for … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Victor Pascual
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Prakash
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol for … gao.yang2
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Avasarala, Ranjit
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Soo-Hyun Choi
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … José Luis Millán
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Henry Sinnreich
- [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was R… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Jim McEachern
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Avasarala, Ranjit
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Tim Panton
- [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON (was: About de… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… cbran
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… José Luis Millán
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON (was: Abou… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Jim McEachern
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON Magnus Westerlund
- [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb default … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… José Luis Millán
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON (was: Abou… Elwell, John
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Henry Sinnreich
- [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signaling… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Randell Jesup
- [rtcweb] SCTP for data channels in rtcweb Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] SCTP for data channels in rtcweb Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Jozsef Vass
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Jozsef Vass
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Jozsef Vass
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Jim McEachern
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Asveren, Tolga
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saul Ibarra Corretge