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

[cbran <[e-mail]>]

+1 Ted ­ totally agree.



On 9/16/11 1:43 PM, "Ted Hardie" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Jim McEachern <[e-mail]>
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb