IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]

Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com> Tue, 20 September 2011 08:14 UTC

Return-Path: <HKaplan@acmepacket.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 F2F9D21F8B56 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 WzposXtd9qva for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from etmail.acmepacket.com (etmail.acmepacket.com [216.41.24.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D9721F8B51 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL2.acmepacket.com (10.0.0.22) by etmail.acmepacket.com (216.41.24.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:17:16 -0400
Received: from MAIL1.acmepacket.com ([169.254.1.150]) by Mail2.acmepacket.com ([169.254.2.157]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 04:17:15 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
Thread-Index: AQHMd220PqVpjlbCTEKowCUVUodjXA==
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 08:17:15 +0000
Message-ID: <BB52C621-1D9E-41DD-B36B-28404740A1FE@acmepacket.com>
References: <CALiegfnOCxyTo9ffQ272+ncdu5UdgrtDT-dn10BWGTZMEjZoCg@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C93@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><16880306-5B3A-4EFD-ADE4-1201138D9182@acmepacket.com><8584590C8D7DD141AA96D01920FC6C698C896B71@gbplmail03.genband.com><CA+9kkMAwnnKKO5+q6ey4Z0QNxax1QF21vVtw8FNsHy_rmfenjQ@mail.gmail.com><4E76E078.5020708@jesup.org><8548CBBD-4E12-48F3-BC59-341FF45EF22F@acmepacket.com><4E77495E.4000409@jesup.org><CALiegfkTdCAeEdZbXP1Y9L6i4Anjrgf1CG6ZNj35WGoHL3p_Ew@mail.gmail.com><4E774F92.4040405@jesup.org><8ECCEE59-E855-4EA9-92B9-543D1585B1F0@ag-projects.com><4E778F1F.9090105@jesup.org><CEA0AC9E-6387-4066-95DC-0D70302E80A7@ag-projects.com><4E77C3EC.9060801@jesup.org> <CAD5OKxtciYxaVpb7b3G9yMg1A97b9dkjkOpppZcSRzS5SAO3+A@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0DD8@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <C55E752E-18FD-402C-A7DE-1627813B3F6D@acmepacket.com> <4E78351C.20103@jesup.org> <E4C646E9-44E5-4EBE-9AA1-D97500FAEE66@acmepacket.com> <4E7844B7.8000005@jesup.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E7844B7.8000005@jesup.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [216.41.24.34]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <117546E686F54B4DA447B869386B0453@acmepacket.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAWE=
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
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, 20 Sep 2011 08:14:53 -0000

On Sep 20, 2011, at 3:45 AM, Randell Jesup wrote:

> Ok; I hadn't looked at what controls we're giving the JS app (mostly focusing on IETF
> level stuff).  W3C issue.  It would be nice if an app could set up a bridge; I'm
> a little surprised it can't.

If it could, we'd probably have the siprec/remote-recording requirement accommodated.  :)


>> A full mesh is what *should* happen, but SIP/SDP can't do it, afaict.  It would treat them either as independent calls even at a media layer, or as a full-mixer conference focus model.  The closest thing we have would probably be the Join header, but I believe it's semantics is to join as a full mixer conf call.  Isn't this full-mesh media-forking thing actually a new semantic for SIP/SDP?  (it's hard to believe with 100+ drafts/RFCs this scenario hasn't already been addressed in SIP - I must be just having a memory leak)
> 
> SIP has been very focused on device<->server interaction, not device<->device.  However:
> note that we have an app that knows why it has these calls in place; we're not defining an
> abstract, portable protocol use here.

Aha!  So it's not "SIP" that you meant... you meant "something that looks like SIP but isn't SIP per the RFCs".  ;)

-hadriel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email