Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC service between SPs

Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com> Fri, 28 June 2013 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jim.barnett@genesyslab.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 77BAF21F9B10 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 YhzYNLX+AYAO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from service108-us.mimecast.com (service108-us.mimecast.com [205.139.110.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E6F21F9ADD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail-us.genesyslab.com (168.75.250.3 [168.75.250.3]) (Using TLS) by service108-us.mimecast.com; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:03:28 -0400
Received: from GENSJZMBX01.msg.int.genesyslab.com ([fe80::c80a:d985:3cca:a5e7]) by GENSJZFE01.msg.int.genesyslab.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:03:27 -0700
From: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
To: "Wangyahui (Yahui)" <yahui.wang@huawei.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WebRTC service between SPs
Thread-Index: Ac5z0qWy9y8UDykmSVWknFkwecyvnwARaJEQ
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:03:27 +0000
Message-ID: <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281052E6B@GENSJZMBX01.msg.int.genesyslab.com>
References: <034C870DB898BE43B5787C7A79107CD94BFA4E1B@nkgeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <034C870DB898BE43B5787C7A79107CD94BFA4E1B@nkgeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [108.7.220.231]
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MC-Unique: 113062812032901202
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D281052E6BGENSJZMBX01msgint_"
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WebRTC service between SPs
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, 28 Jun 2013 16:03:39 -0000

As I understand it, it's not just a problem of identities.  WebRTC does not define the signaling protocol, but leaves it  up to the application.  If two users download their applications/JavaScript from the same site, it won't be a problem, because the same application is handling both ends of the call.  But if one user is on site A while the other is on site B, there is no guarantee that either site's application will understand the signaling from the other.

-          Jim

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wangyahui (Yahui)
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 3:40 AM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] WebRTC service between SPs

Hi all,
I have followed RTCWeb discussion for some time.
As far as I know, any website can conveniently integrate WebRTC service, particularly social networking websites. It can easily be predicted that many service providers (SPs), especially social networking SPs will release their WebRTC services in the near future. But I am wondering how the users under different SPs can communicate using WebRTC client. Each SP offers different user identity in different domain. Although some mechanisms can support to login multiple websites using a uniform account, such as Persona ID, OpenID or OAuth, they have different Idps, and not all websites apply the same mechanism.
I am not sure whether it is a problem. Thanks for your any comments.