Re: [rtcweb] Use of offer / answer semantics

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Tue, 06 September 2011 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <emil@sip-communicator.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 C795B21F8BB1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 nxiANomDhkNU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com (mail-ey0-f174.google.com [209.85.215.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9180321F8C4B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyx24 with SMTP id 24so4240256eyx.19 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.157.144 with SMTP id b16mr674259bkx.396.1315324328228; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from camionet.local ([78.90.181.123]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p9sm103277fah.1.2011.09.06.08.52.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 06 Sep 2011 08:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E6641A6.10103@jitsi.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:52:06 +0300
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; bg; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110830 Thunderbird/3.1.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
References: <DB0C463A-FF5F-4C15-B2B4-E81B7DF92351@cisco.com> <4E663A35.7000507@skype.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E663A35.7000507@skype.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use of offer / answer semantics
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, 06 Sep 2011 15:50:28 -0000

Hey Matthew,

На 06.09.11 18:20, Matthew Kaufman написа:
> On 9/6/2011 7:46 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> In my roll as an individual contributor, I want to propose some
>> text that I think we can get rough consensus on around that helps
>> specify which parts of the signaling issues we agree on and which
>> we don't.
>> 
>> At the last meeting, my read of the the room was there was a fair
>> amount of agreement in the room that offer / answer semantics  with
>> SDP are what we want to use. I don't think there was was broad
>> agreement on if one should use SIP or not, or for that matter
>> jingle. If we can nail down this decisions as the direction the WG
>> is going, it will really help make progress. What I would like to
>> do is propose some following principles in the text below. If we
>> have agreement on these, then they would go into the overview
>> document and help guide the design of other documents. I want to
>> highlight that none of the principles below imply that we would
>> need to use SIP in the browsers - the principals would all work
>> fine if we there was signaling gateway in the web server that
>> converged SIP to whatever proprietary HTML / JS  / HTTP that the
>> applications wanted to use between the browser and the web server.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 1) The media negotiations will be done using the same SDP
>> offer/answer semantics that are used in SIP.
> 
> I think this would be unfortunate. We have an opportunity here to not
>  repeat this mistake.

I'd be interested in hearing what mistakes you have in mind.

> And *if* we go down this road, we need additional language around
> things like exposing the capabilities via an API that doesn't start
> the offer/answer process itself. (Use case: determine if a browser
> has an appropriate camera and encoder before suggesting that they
> call the customer service rep for a live chat.)

+1

Personally I'd vote for mimicing XMPP's service discovery here. (see
XEP-0030 and XEP-0115 on http://xmpp.org/extensions )

I definitely think discovery of capabilities should not be part of the
offer/answer negotiation.

Emil

-- 
http://jitsi.org