Re: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket subprotocol - JSEP over websockets

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Wed, 03 December 2014 18:38 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF13F1A1EEA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:38:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DbPKmep591m8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:37:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com (mail-wi0-f173.google.com [209.85.212.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF5CC1A1A57 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:37:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id r20so32393240wiv.6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:37:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eKFVgVnfpUCppyLiEJSe3kZBmE2mcjSZ4KmEDavX0xA=; b=hXZJh+kC5wCRQrA0WStUJltXgLVBXNewaOmjmL9pSZxQLgKAyJRjLhv5LnD1yYZVJM hKeFpK06TJLZOcxSkGjCUUwj9rPnAmMSMtqgacteXC8f+DxY4qcrLsah6U83a8WB2vCh LsJPBh4G42xzsDx0Goo6zvqn/R/85Je12sN2FevnFrIRtJhyTBmmmoZNY5mZSsLuEq39 /aCuvbQMTtahuFYIhmw73BRMvuBbD/kZ7Iaoh+B0+ijl0JtW0KozMQ/YLrLoc4GZq0qu lUa+oTAuCZ0xPdHzWWzOFNBXbkKR2150V+Imvs7wl4hOHhZZQQy6ccGAquxFVHITB378 zo0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmi7QPnr45ZJ1bjWdT+klh12vXS5TponXBePCH8U4ZXMx3EmO2kq/idSaFwCPyUr6X75Ipb
X-Received: by 10.180.90.206 with SMTP id by14mr15628516wib.67.1417631877650; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com. [209.85.212.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o2sm855316wja.45.2014.12.03.10.37.57 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:37:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id l15so25444407wiw.10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:37:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.92.116 with SMTP id cl20mr9698136wjb.71.1417631876711; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 10:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.70.16 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:37:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6bef1cce67d1c9da7c29d8e0804f2551@ranjitvoip.com>
References: <6bef1cce67d1c9da7c29d8e0804f2551@ranjitvoip.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:37:56 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxs07wAu3V-x2gDnEmoAOEYL-X6njYmCTnfTBQB-YzD02w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: ranjit@ranjitvoip.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd910c26f0c730509542418
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/eRWD639dwnKgjEDtyKUtCOUEsI4
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket subprotocol - JSEP over websockets
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 03 Dec 2014 18:38:04 -0000

Is there any reason you cannot use SIP over WebSocket (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7118)?

Call signaling will require a lot more information then what is provided in
JSEP. JSEP mostly deals with offer and answer processing. Signaling will
also need to deal with things like who is calling, why they are calling,
transfers, other application specific details. In other words, I think this
is a very bad idea.

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM, <ranjit@ranjitvoip.com> wrote:

> Hi
> With websockets as a de-facto transport protocol for WebRTC signaling and
> JSEP being the format of encoding information, there is a need for a
> defining a websocket sub-protocol : jsep. So I would like to know if there
> is any interest in the community and also the views from experts about the
> need for a websocket-sub protocol for JSEP.
>
> The main purpose of defining the sub protocol (jsep) is to make sure that
> the WebRTC client (WIC) and WebRTC server (E-CSCF) are receiving JSEP
> encoded messages.
>
> Thanks
> Ranjit
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>