Re: [rtcweb] Current state of signaling discussion

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-10-18 15:34, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> 
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> 
>> We also have a third proposal that want to be included in the 
>> considerations: c) RTCWEB does not define any signaling behavior at
>> all, instead W3C is tasked to develop an API that allows the
>> application to establish the media session between peers.
>> 
>> I have as WG chair requested that the proponents for C to produce
>> a Internet draft that provides requirements on the API and its
>> capability. This is to ensure that this proposal can be properly
>> evaluated. So far no such contribution has occurred. Without a
>> willingness from the proponents of this style of solution to
>> contribute and evolve their thinking in such way that the other WG
>> members can gain a better understanding of the implications of this
>> solution I find it difficult for us include it in the up coming
>> consensus call.
> 
> That was not my understanding of what you (the WG Chairs) were asking
> for.  The email from Ted asking for drafts was this: 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg01761.html
> 
> My reading of that is it was asking for a concrete solution in the
> signaling solutions discussion.  For those of us who feel there needs
> to be *no* standard-defined signaling, it was asking us for the empty
> set.  We delivered.  :)
> 

In the following message I included my clarified request on that there
is still need to have an I-D on the "no signalling" proposal:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg01794.html

> Now it sounds like you're asking for something different:
> requirements for the (W3C-defined) API.  I had assumed that's what
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements was supposed to cover.
> No?

No, that is the general use cases for the complete solution. What I am
asking is for something that makes it clear what the API need to contain
to initiate and configure ICE negotiation, media transport etc.

Saying we don't need no protocol is not sufficient. It doesn't make it
clear what it actually means to have no standardized protocol and the
implications this have on what the API needs to expose.

What we are trying to accomplish is that we go from general hand waving
on the different approaches to something that is reasonably well
explained. Thus enabling everyone to better understand the proposals.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------