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

Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> Mon, 19 September 2011 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew.kaufman@skype.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 46A1221F8A57 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.883
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.883 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.284, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_SUMOF=5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 wqevhAT4ukOX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.skype.net (mx.skype.net [78.141.177.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FFDF21F8A56 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.skype.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B195816F6; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:47:11 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=skype.net; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mx; bh=v60E09BMgynL0p b2EQGlLhBbtkU=; b=njrEDGY41iqNQkJmqT4FoaO1JH0KfyngkcqAevxVmOUhIi rIbyL+hkD4rDVvGTJ2Gf3G7QKSsiIHHW4vQWq5i4NqM/3c/Fj8+HS+PRFY3BaoHd GaKsb4UkQWZYKRGb0AbqPjgsup8nwhPMrE7wknmkidfKVgFBYbMZZ4Wmy915o=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=skype.net; h=message-id:date:from :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mx; b=eaFsPpQk+XWgJwiPXNE7R3 0y3vU8xPdk2tY3neTX40q216T2hBf2tx76H7p+/130Y7LzBXr80aOdmNw5HwGyAz M6KeUI8Sf9td7vAv1Rs+48Q5O5hcWZruY0Wy2n7FtlqVSUKHzYBd7lV7ckHs9GUE QfL4D794HFrSlKjuO/UyM=
Received: from zimbra.skype.net (zimbra.skype.net [78.141.177.82]) by mx.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02DF7F6; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:47:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAF63507ED9; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:47:11 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at lu2-zimbra.skype.net
Received: from zimbra.skype.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.skype.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9bDcLOp8R-1M; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:47:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.10.155.2] (unknown [198.202.199.254]) by zimbra.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 751113507EE0; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:47:10 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E77C636.7080501@skype.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 15:46:14 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.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> <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>
In-Reply-To: <4E77C3EC.9060801@jesup.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:44:49 -0000

On 9/19/2011 3:36 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
>
> The purpose of including a protocol (which is optional to use) isn't 
> to allow
> direct browser-to-browser discovery or initiation without a server.  
> In fact,
> it doesn't help *or* hurt that use-case.  A primary reason for 
> including a protocol
> is to make it easy to build things.
>

By that logic we should have a built-in shopping cart to make creating 
web storefronts easier, a built-in email client to make it easier to 
build the next Gmail, etc.

Except that all the interesting things that have ever happened on the 
web are because clever people used the minimal built-in stuff to make 
something much more than the sum of its parts, not because the masses 
used the pre-built parts to replicate what already exists.

I don't want my web browser to have a phone inside of it. I want my web 
browser to be the thing that someone turns into the next great real-time 
communications experience... whatever that is.

Matthew Kaufman