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

cbran <> Fri, 16 September 2011 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C01EF21F8D0E for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.865
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dTk7Eph-kTEU for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB3321F8D0D for <>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,395,1312156800"; d="scan'208,217";a="2639465"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 16 Sep 2011 20:50:32 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8GKoW7h019253; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:50:32 GMT
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:50:32 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:50:31 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:50:30 -0700
From: cbran <>
To: Ted Hardie <>, Jim McEachern <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
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: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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" <> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Jim McEachern <>
> 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