Re: [rtcweb] My Opinion: Why I think a negotiating protocol is a Good Thing

Wolfgang Beck <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com> Tue, 18 October 2011 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.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 3A58B21F8BBB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 3VZcIkSdGqog for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3493E21F8BBA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:29:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxj19 with SMTP id 19so1076372yxj.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=wwPlXTV7l4I+DIYHdJoe8NZhwEhVDsWVr0nLlcUa+Bk=; b=YBkpFblJlb2hc4ZhvHKmXJRarezGAklk26ySy0uIIu5uit5LQVjpO0GJO2jMKzhXZG oBOokluiJZDJ4Xvb5nljNWsjd7Zv2bX89D2VLpNEgKU4VqB7Fr1P+Bzo5NeML/9wUqdO Ml7wOuhglve3WdJ5JYHH1FvpNjmSfK+NiyAjs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.20.41 with SMTP id k9mr6656089pbe.90.1318962582175; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.55.230 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:29:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E9DBECC.6000206@alvestrand.no>
References: <4E9D667A.2040703@alvestrand.no> <CAAJUQMhUh5XiFh8rpg=Xag_F_Vm5tuVE5yRnArxzcd6sXb-=Kw@mail.gmail.com> <4E9DBECC.6000206@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:29:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAJUQMg=njg6SLBnLrQhN8kqyn8Y55Ghmv8YYpzfP6rmUanmBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wolfgang Beck <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] My Opinion: Why I think a negotiating protocol is a Good Thing
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 18:29:45 -0000

> 1) we have to support both the case of one web server and the case of 2 web
> servers.
>
If we look at SIP, the trapezoid model hasn't been too sucessful.
Depressingly few SIP providers do interconnection, after all those
years.
Instead, even simple SIP clients support more than one SIP account so
people can reach their contact on different SIP providers.

> 2) when there is only one web server, one of the browsers is Firefox and the
> other one is Chrome, the JS needs to have a standard means of communication
> with the browser. This means a standard.
The chat function of stackexchange.com has Firefox and Chrome users.
I'm not aware of any standardized signalling protocol to exchange
the capabilities between the browsers. Instead the JS chat client
queries the browser's capabilities locally and sends them in a
non-standard format
to the web server.


Wolfgang Beck