Re: [rtcweb] Signalling, SDP, and the way we think about interconnecting RTCWEB applications

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Mon, 17 October 2011 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.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 8CA5511E8082 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:52:43 -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 jIinPFSHrKsy for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:52:40 -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 037D711E8073 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so3387883vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Dqz77QYDM7lbf8sLmdzSSCD6XDU20sLBoKWmX3nl1pg=; b=Z8A8wBWVh72RB4/0OgqysRLs0B7XuwJwdLJigEAgFW/Hq1QLnVc1ltRqLcqngiBqd6 dlWNnPzAAycIbgaKHwOg9jT94i464/q0C+6Ttue2bJXw51J80IJ79dNPK8871uyU7v52 QgoB0GpGDW1o20JpE+41jj30qFu/kk0QFLOh8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.21.232 with SMTP id y8mr21065198vde.83.1318873959494; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.107.202 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:52:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAJUQMgJ1wif-gNWvaM6XBzg_JK2Y6w0B7Mn_9qZdnz7B7scgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AAE428925197FE46A5F94ED6643478FEA925614C6A@HE111644.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> <92A553E5-107A-4987-A5F5-1F56FB5A7800@acmepacket.com> <CALiegfn6nv1D2HjeMo-jPDh9Acph7JdH1DT1xZXUtHqzqxya3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMB3p1u7hRX_vO1bQbQ2z-V+0rLiJmi+ZqkEA0mqc66keQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegf=26_6r_YjBCmO+6_GnrAzi=KcLoPFqUi-y1E8m_gWreQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDsWyKdvXSRMV0OGEeEYbSENFHSOovNJDUGK30N_pGrnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABRok6nsVH5tYfwFqQpmjF=Kj-wZQDB9XUX8oOee8r3wr51fKA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAJUQMg79h1=V4m9agq9CcEmFknTaaXrgUz9qtq9EL-0_nChiQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E996E80.6070500@alvestrand.no> <CABRok6k=8wa_K7X+MHwaii+6ANfTquLqauMKgm7KP82wf6pKyA@mail.gmail.com> <8486C8728176924BAF5BDB2F7D7EEDDF3E0906A2@ucolhp4d.easf.csd.disa.mil> <CAAJUQMjsRu=eQic002-T-V0rK=1ByRUD8vV2_+C3Q-cHf-ZL4g@mail.gmail.com> <CAAJUQMiV0-w7QBpWk1dc+BprM0T1MiKt-yuH7V9YyZ=vwD=z7Q@mail.gmail.com> <4E9BA235.3010808@jesup.org> <CAAJUQMjx3KnAqqFbEzzKBw_QMa48+yokQ8U4wemMGGVQhOepCg@mail.gmail.com> <4E9C430A.1070600@jesup.org> <CAAJUQMgJ1wif-gNWvaM6XBzg_JK2Y6w0B7Mn_9qZdnz7B7scgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:52:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAPAK-4uCDDCr74xFop+o692RFF2xZ2qpoyxAOuUvSiY6KdhFg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
To: Wolfgang Beck <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3079babadbf53304af824555
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Signalling, SDP, and the way we think about interconnecting RTCWEB applications
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: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:52:43 -0000

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Wolfgang Beck <
wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com>; wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>;
> wrote:
>
> > Ok, I looked at draft-beck-rtcweb-alt-ic.
> >
> > One huge problem with it: it's based on an assumption that for most cases
> of
> > federation and cross-service calls won't hold: that clients will use the
> > same client JS app, and the services are just providing different
> > realms/methods of authentication and user-lookup.
> >
> > Also, your draft doesn't explain how A & B came to be talking to the same
> > server in the first place.  The draft seems mostly focused on how a
> single
> > provider can use a shared authentication scheme (and I would suggest that
> we
> > try to find a provider-agnostic way to leverage id systems such as
> BrowserID
> > and/or OpenID to provide end-user identification).
> >
> Ok, here's an example that works today. Let's assume you have a yahoo
> account and want to post a comment on stackexchange.com.
> You just point your browser to the stackexchange.com url [i.e. user
> location]. Now you log in using your yahoo account as OpenID. The
> browser loads the stackexchanges's JS client that enables you to post
> your text.  There is no comment-posting-protocol required between
> yahoo and
> stackexchange. They only have to agree on an 3rd party authentication
> protocol.
>
> If stackexchange extends its functionality, let's say with real-time
> chat (which they did), your browser will load the appropriate JS
> client
> the next time you load the page.  All parties in the chat will use the
> same JS client under stackexchange's control, regardless whether
> people have
> used google, yahoo, or facebook to log in. There is no need to
> standardize anything that crosses stackexchange's servers.
>
> Now you want to make a comment on some blog at blogspot.com. You point
> your browser at the blog's URL and log in using your Yahoo OpenID.
> The browser loads blogspot's JS client. The GUI looks quite different
> but you can post your comment as well.
>
> With the current RTCWEB thinking, we would have to specify an intra
> server protocol that covered stackexchange's discussion and chat
> systems as well as blogspot comments. Such a protocol would soon get
> very complex.
>


Such protocol is not possible across domains unless the host is the same.

Only when the host is the same does intra- faces makes sense.