IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC service between SPs

"Wangyahui (Yahui)" <yahui.wang@huawei.com> Sat, 29 June 2013 09:29 UTC

Return-Path: <yahui.wang@huawei.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 BE29D21F9E68 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 02:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.802, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, 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 AtguvyrCuB5T for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 02:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4AF021F9E67 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 02:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ASY74476; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 09:29:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:28:49 +0100
Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 10:29:39 +0100
Received: from NKGEML507-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.117]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 17:29:31 +0800
From: "Wangyahui (Yahui)" <yahui.wang@huawei.com>
To: Hrishikesh Kulkarni <rishi@turtleyogi.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] WebRTC service between SPs
Thread-Index: Ac5z0qWy9y8UDykmSVWknFkwecyvnwARaJEQ//+i/ICAAMcZgP//d1SA
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 09:29:30 +0000
Message-ID: <034C870DB898BE43B5787C7A79107CD94BFA5254@nkgeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <034C870DB898BE43B5787C7A79107CD94BFA4E1B@nkgeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com> <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281052E6B@GENSJZMBX01.msg.int.genesyslab.com> <CAA4nhyCLd_JGdGaqGFN3e5qi7eDy4yLVdpSLYU76HCa4AmcUUQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALFWOz4EqVXOTJAUpJ1dU22fpx5J3S5VowFMd=EwkM4sXSSHEA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALFWOz4EqVXOTJAUpJ1dU22fpx5J3S5VowFMd=EwkM4sXSSHEA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.63.61]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_034C870DB898BE43B5787C7A79107CD94BFA5254nkgeml507mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC service between SPs
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: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 09:29:51 -0000

Thanks for your comments.
Yes, we can implement the federation between SPs through using the same signaling protocol (e.g. SIP) or deploying a gateway.

But what I concern is how to compatible with the existing various user id from different SPs. For example, if Google provides WebRTC client, then the users should be able to login using their Gmail address. In the same way, Facebook support the users using FacebookId. So the format of identification may be number, string or email and so on.

The problem is how to handle addressing users of different SPs. Should it be standardized to a unified WebRTC URI?

Yahui

发件人: Hrishikesh Kulkarni [mailto:rishi@turtleyogi.com]
发送时间: 2013年6月29日 14:18
收件人: Moises Silva
抄送: Jim Barnett; Wangyahui (Yahui); rtcweb@ietf.org
主题: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC service between SPs

SIP is an established standard to interoperate domains. We at OneKlikStreet.com developed a video/audio bridging service for WebRTC. Although it uses JS/JSON signaling for web based clients. Our server could very well federate with any other service using SIP. What does need to be discussed on app to app basis is what kind of federation you are looking for?
In case of bridging service we could merge calls from both servers or redirect all the calls to the host service.

regards,
Rishi
Founder, OneKlikStreet.com



On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Moises Silva <moises.silva@gmail.com<mailto:moises.silva@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com<mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>> wrote:
As I understand it, it’s not just a problem of identities.  WebRTC does not define the signaling protocol, but leaves it  up to the application.  If two users download their applications/JavaScript from the same site, it won’t be a problem, because the same application is handling both ends of the call.  But if one user is on site A while the other is on site B, there is no guarantee that either site’s application will understand the signaling from the other.

Unless websites agree to use something standard such as SIP/Jingle for federation (inter website/domain communication).

-
Moy

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email