Re: [rtcweb] Current state of signaling discussion

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 18 October 2011 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 0671F21F87FA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 UD-UQBGdU7Ox for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD6721F87C5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so984241vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.35.34 with SMTP id e2mr4343954vdj.52.1318974072653; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F89E752A-820B-4C41-BE14-15B358BFA267@acmepacket.com>
References: <4E9D773A.4010705@ericsson.com> <E7E0C331-9943-444F-9D42-782DAD6A7FF3@acmepacket.com> <CABcZeBP0v=q7sH4G4Ehvx7x5b_tyoukS1N0EOm1Ji8URNOeDUw@mail.gmail.com> <F89E752A-820B-4C41-BE14-15B358BFA267@acmepacket.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:41:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmJsC+F2XAAKytfT1VOkavPgH5+1QYNX98LwztfcCR=Aw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Current state of signaling discussion
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 21:48:33 -0000

2011/10/18 Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>;:
> In the abstract it states:
> "The protocol focuses solely on media negotiation and does not handle call control, call processing, or other functions."
>
> Ignoring esoteric stuff like session transfer, forwarding, etc. (ie, ignoring "phone" stuff) is fine.
>
> BUT, for an actual session protocol to work for even a gaming app, you need to do the following:
> 1) determine a target for the ROAP message (ie, who's this OFFER going to in the end?)
> 2) define how that target identity is conveyed (ie, how does the web server know which browser to give this ROAP OFFER to?)
> 3) define a source identity model, possibly with authentication (ie, who are you?)
> 4) define how the source identity is conveyed (ie, how does the server/far-end-browser know who's calling?)
> 5) define a end-of-session indication
> 6) define a keep-alive mechanism, for when the far end goes away silently and (5) doesn't apply
>
> And I've probably missed some other things.


Hi Hadriel, if ROAP draft specifies all the points above it becomes an
entire signaling protocol, and AFAIK we don't want that. If I use SIP
over WebSocket I just want (and need) to use SIP for signaling. So the
JS client constructs an INVITE which tells the proxy/server who he
claims to be. The proxy (speaking SIP over WebSocket) acts as a normal
SIP proxy for routing requests and responses, requiring
authentication, performing authorization, registration (or routing the
REGISTER to a pure registrar server behind it...).

So I don't see the need for ROAP to become a on-the-wire signaling
protocol. In fact, I don't support that idea.

I'm happy if ROAP just covers the communication between the JS and the
browser RTCweb stack. How the signaling messages (including the SDP or
"like-SDP") are carried on the wire should be out of the scope of ROAP
(the draft already is defined for being singaling protocol agnostic).

Regards.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>;