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

cbran <cbran@cisco.com> Fri, 16 September 2011 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <cbran@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 C01EF21F8D0E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.865
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.865 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
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 dTk7Eph-kTEU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB3321F8D0D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=cbran@cisco.com; l=7855; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1316206232; x=1317415832; h=date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=egtJjtjZGZev0ElDhKuIHV5EnVwxYlVNvVGv1tWtTw8=; b=ZHY84gXqMJkLDEwLxeaeN/uoufGz8Le4TOPrEFLf2L3sr6rwXT6Wyh/d eatCPxXoxTONHG5wqZ2lpcVYLmQkIVeDY67ok8hW+eLcy7hjGjjFkZiD4 9ntAmqzYcVSsPzDGo+ehPluYxWd2BVkLgqX8wubcL7GeGto5cg0q4H8gz g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAHAFm2c06rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABBgk2kDoEDAneBUwEBAQECAQEBAQ8BKjELBQ0BCAkPIywGMAEBBAENBSKHVQSWOgGeIYZ4BIc/MIRehn2FJoRshzo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,395,1312156800"; d="scan'208,217";a="2639465"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Sep 2011 20:50:32 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8GKoW7h019253; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:50:32 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-228.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.125]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:50:32 -0700
Received: from 64.101.44.136 ([64.101.44.136]) by xmb-sjc-228.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.125]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:50:31 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:50:30 -0700
From: cbran <cbran@cisco.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Jim McEachern <jim.mceachern@genband.com>
Message-ID: <CA9904A6.661D%cbran@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
Thread-Index: Acx0skUlp3o+dLYgY0SRUu0WF3nTZA==
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAwnnKKO5+q6ey4Z0QNxax1QF21vVtw8FNsHy_rmfenjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3399025830_19869571"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Sep 2011 20:50:32.0231 (UTC) FILETIME=[467A1B70:01CC74B2]
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <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: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:48:18 -0000

+1 Ted ­ totally agree.



On 9/16/11 1:43 PM, "Ted Hardie" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>; wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Jim McEachern <jim.mceachern@genband.com>;
> wrote:
>> Hadriel,
>> Well said.
>> 
>> Your closing paragraph sums it up nicely in my mind.
>> 
>> <snip>
>> The only thing we need to do for rtcweb is make sure the RTP library built
>> into the browser supports media in such a way that it can communicate with
>> other RTP peers at a media plane, regardless of what signaling protocol those
>> peers might be using, preferably without going through media gateways.  And
>> ... we need to make sure it's possible to use SIP on the rtcweb server....
>> </snip>
>> 
> 
> I think there is more to it than this for it to be a success.  We have to make
> sure that it is relatively easy to adopt  rtcweb in javascript applications. 
> The way we've discussed that in the past was "2 party video chat in 20 lines
> of javascript".   If a novel signalling protocol is created every time, that
> won't be a practical choice.  Even if the signalling is segmented into
> libraries, the app will have to download the one in use by a particular
> website, potentially every time.  This is better than a plugin in some ways
> and potentially actually worse in others.
> 
> We also have to make sure that the resulting application does not flood or fry
> the network. That means it will have to have real congestion control
> mechanisms.   Trusting the javascript application for that has some real
> issues which we've already discussed.   Splitting signaling and congestion
> control isn't a lot better.  If congestion control at the network level is
> managed by the browser but signalling is in the javascript, then information
> about that state has to pass into the JS application, so it can manage the
> signalling.  That makes the APIs more complex and runs the risk that a naive
> javascript application will not adjust to the congestion control requirements
> at all.
> 
> The early web took off in part because of the ease of embedding things like
> images (compared to gopher, for example) into rich content.  We have the
> opportunity to create native web applications with much richer and more
> interactive experiences with rtcweb, but if it is not easy to do, it won't
> have the same impact.  If this is something that can be done only by folks who
> can roll their own signalling protocol, it's dead, because the number of
> content authors is too small.  If it even requires selecting among an
> unbounded set of variously maintained libraries , it will be frustrating for
> the developer of simple applications.   At that level, the existing plugins
> will simply be more stable and better known.
> 
> Providing baseline APIs into a well-known signaling capability seems to me far
> more likely to result in a real flowering of rtcweb content.  That's why I
> want it.
> 
> Just my two cents, not taken from any hat,
> 
> Ted
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb