Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Tue, 18 October 2011 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.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 2A6B221F848A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:00:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.941
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.941 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.342, 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 2NMpeFStSYVh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91AA321F8CE1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail04.sonusnet.com (sonusmail04.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.98]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9IJ18QL024089; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:01:08 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail04.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:00:33 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:30:29 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF511599F5@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <01441535-7FF6-4C88-AA28-53B5CB68374F@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
Thread-Index: AcyNxZ5IL/uWdrh3TsW+PqFUMmkzlwAAPEpQ
References: <15B0E3AD-3086-499A-8E79-7AE58B3376C4@cisco.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159957@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <01441535-7FF6-4C88-AA28-53B5CB68374F@cisco.com>
From: "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2011 19:00:33.0941 (UTC) FILETIME=[36CEF450:01CC8DC8]
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg <jonathan.rosenberg@skype.net>, rtcweb@ietf.org, public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:00:47 -0000

Cullen,

Thanks for the clarification about ROAP dialog stateful in signaling
gateway & Session-id usage.  Please update this information in the next
revision. 

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:12 AM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org; public-webrtc@w3.org; Jonathan Rosenberg
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
>
>
>So I might have messed up the draft a bit. I'm fine with things can be
>implemented as dialog statefull, what I want is that it is possible to
>make a signaling gateway that is only transaction statefull. I'm fine
if
>some signaling gateways are built as dialog statefull.
>
> (As a side note, some B2BUA are effectively transaction statefull but
>that is pretty rare )
>
>
>On Oct 17, 2011, at 15:28 , Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>
>> Cullen/Joanthan,
>>
>> I like your proposed idea as it is going in the direction of having
>> "standard" signaling protocol for RTCWeb. I'm seeing your proposal as
>> SDP offer/answer over websocket and the proposal helps to easy
gateway
>> development between RTCWeb server and legacy signaling protocols.
>>
>> I have fundamental question in the proposal as it proposes RTCWeb
>server
>> as SIP proxy equivalent and in reality, unfortunately most of the SIP
>> deployment work is based on B2BUA. The question is whether RTCWeb
>server
>> shall be dialog-state or MUST be transaction-stateful only.
>>
>> Also, session-id in the draft is used to uniquely understand the
>offerer
>> and answerer in the transaction or session. In case it is session,
how
>> to indicate the termination of the session.
>>
>
>My personal opinion is that to be able to clean up all the state in a
>clean an easy way, we should add some message to indicate the SDP offer
>/ answer state and related media streams can be discarded.  I'd like to
>add that to the next version.
>
>
>> Thanks
>> Partha
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf
>>> Of Cullen Jennings
>>> Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 8:39 AM
>>> To: rtcweb@ietf.org; public-webrtc@w3.org
>>> Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg
>>> Subject: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan and I submitted a new draft on setting up media based on
the
>>> SDP Offer/Answer model. The ASCII flows are a bit hard to read so
>until
>>> I update them, I recommend reading the PDF version at
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling-00.pdf
>>>
>>> Clearly the draft is an early stage but we plan to revise it before
>the
>>> deadline for the IETF 82. Love to get input - particularly on if
this
>>> looks like generally the right direction to go.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb