[rtcweb] Media negeotiation and signalling archatecture

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Wed, 29 June 2011 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 1CD119E800D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jyctPwuZCegA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC219E800C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=1744; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1309360077; x=1310569677; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: to:mime-version; bh=lSJmDQHche+8vUSuV9dsj0/fY0YjiDtF/HILNDds3FM=; b=nF3skvZJVUorU9aRz9XxmeAKm5cFCm9ZAkHmgRmbBCXnGxW4G0cWahkc YDO3miZo58Wcbef+a3hWw/2Bubns9V+xNwPwqyHeHiVmqZ7K4ZzKBRjTE N0HlSVrm7vhq/rorBC+kCl9V9vfSLnT9m+5tmBFQQgCwo7HWMEe8NHE0j 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmoHAPg+C06rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABSmGSOeHerGYEenhGGMASHNophhHWLVA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,443,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="472061076"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jun 2011 15:07:55 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (rcdn-fluffy-8712.cisco.com [10.99.9.19]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p5TF7sVZ021522 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:07:54 GMT
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:07:53 -0600
Message-Id: <B6D678DA-DB26-4A7C-AA0C-6DB580C1E835@cisco.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: [rtcweb] Media negeotiation and signalling archatecture
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: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:07:58 -0000

One of the complicated architectural issues for this WG is what path the signaling information gets passed over, and in the parts of that that path that need to be standardized, what does the signaling information looks like. To help get discussion going on that, I have described 3 models of how the information could flow in the some pictures in the following PDF. 

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/raw-attachment/wiki/WikiStart/RTCWeb-Signaling.pdf

I split these up into 3 models that I call High, Mid, and Low based on the path the signaling information goes. There has been a fair amount of discussion of High and Mid models in the past in this WG thought pretty much no discussion of the Low model. The interesting things is that when I look at what is getting implemented and prototyped, a lot of it is the low model. 

It certainly possible to support more than one of these but I'm interested in the pro and cons of all these but from my point of view, one of the key issues is how hard is for people to use. If you look at what things have succeeded in HTML, it is typically the things that in there simplest form provide a very simple interface to use them. Yes, they might have a more complex form that allows richer control but the basics are simple. Take the HTML5 video tag for streaming video media for example. There are zillion things that could have been passed and controlled to this flag yet the proposals that one out were the ones that provided something that was incredibly simple to use. Another example is the iPhone interface to make a phone call from the browser has been very successful from an adoption point of view.