Re: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket subprotocol - JSEP over websockets

Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com> Wed, 03 December 2014 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <elagerway@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664FD1A872E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:14:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZBFw_697Orsa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:14:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22e.google.com (mail-ig0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5FE01A86F9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:14:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id hn15so17608924igb.7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:14:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=IeqLvG8vpgJYyRt8YeIefUv4qAhlVJKeHStIC/MZO+c=; b=LLsl9uBxztivJT59ha8O05Nzy7rftwgYNx7z9JK45MlD7reSuXiunkmDtkbmUmGQS7 ukkaR8dUAJsZ7in2rLvU/5BZDrIaBKJiLn5lTwTD+b2CE+3Vjvg6F9hrIZ8wVRXRqMoc wDK1PtYZLgCFUlyk78ZTCSBTdFchjN1RaOtZZYEgfW6/hw5b04lLZZxBhI0yNKO2FY6b 4/YiBqng0zCdQL0c8cXd+BX03XRWDmFL8szs4DiFwu1oqqF8kHXDpkoNFHJeiX4DBf9z mBWLNarAx1rCAJrQbCJtKlxjiNPnigdgOM+2V3VCI7yxfIvvuzHG6K/acr+Gjyhrwa0L Ue6w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.205.197 with SMTP id fr5mr4352136icb.5.1417641274767; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 13:14:34 -0800 (PST)
Sender: elagerway@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.38.137 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:14:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxugW38_D2rMFRE+RAfNEZbF5eSsxzh22K6e4wZ-uW-AQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6bef1cce67d1c9da7c29d8e0804f2551@ranjitvoip.com> <CAD5OKxs07wAu3V-x2gDnEmoAOEYL-X6njYmCTnfTBQB-YzD02w@mail.gmail.com> <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17828E64BCAB@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <554d17d3779404eed3868ae587510e2f@ranjitvoip.com> <CAD5OKxugW38_D2rMFRE+RAfNEZbF5eSsxzh22K6e4wZ-uW-AQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:14:34 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: TGC9gX1NVbr3VHHVyqB29vJKtow
Message-ID: <CAPF_GTYqSsjeLR__bqW2bdmFoa2p3bequt05nm-UV+RpxOAjmA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Lagerway <erik@hookflash.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303ea2de99fdb80509565415
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/j4eNmWZ8DuLFFBTDtraKrnLB4xo
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket subprotocol - JSEP over websockets
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 21:14:38 -0000

+1

*Erik Lagerway <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/lagerway> | *Hookflash
<http://hookflash.com/>* | 1 (855) Hookflash ext. 2 | Twitter
<http://twitter.com/elagerway> | WebRTC.is Blog <http://webrtc.is/> *

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:

> Ranjit,
>
> If you want to create yet another signaling protocol which uses WebSockets
> as a transport, please do. No one is stopping you. Just don't call it JSEP.
> Signaling is very different from JSEP, does a lot more then JSEP and
> requires a lot of effort to design properly and then map to JSEP API. If
> you create something compelling, other people will implement it
> and standardize it. At this point, I do not think this group is interested
> in creating yet another signaling protocol. I do not think this is
> something which is covered by this group charter.
>
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:57 PM, <ranjit@ranjitvoip.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello all
>>
>> While I agree SIP over Websockets is default signaling protocol for
>> WebRTC while working with IMS, there could be scenarios where WebRTC calls
>> can get initiated from non SIP UAs like web browsers which do not support
>> SIP. Then in such cases, the following things could happen
>> 1) the WebRTC client on the browser can use JSEP to send its signaling
>> information over WebSocket,
>> 2) the JSEP message would then land on the WebRTC GW over WS.
>> 3) This JSEP message would then be converted to a SIP message and then
>> sent to IMS core.
>> 4) within IMS core, its a regular SIP message
>> 5) Again in the reverse direction, WebRTC GW would convert SIP to JSEP
>> 6) JSEP message is sent over Websocket to UE.
>>
>> now we see JSEP messages getting exchanged over Websockets. so if the
>> websocket sub-protocol does not define the type as "jsep", then the WebRTC
>> GW would not know the incoming message type and hence may discard it or its
>> behavior may be uncertain.
>>
>> Also the JSEP message needs to be enhanced to add more message types
>> (along with current OFFER / ANSWER) to be able to map it with standard
>> signaling protocol like SIP as defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/
>> draft-partha-rtcweb-jsep-sip-01
>>
>> Regards
>> Ranjit
>>
>> On 2014-12-03 12:40 pm, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) wrote:
>>
>>> + 1 for using SIP over WebSocket.
>>>
>>> FROM: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] ON BEHALF OF Roman
>>> Shpount
>>>  SENT: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 12:38 PM
>>>  TO: ranjit@ranjitvoip.com
>>>  CC: rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>  SUBJECT: Re: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket subprotocol -
>>> JSEP over websockets
>>>
>>> Is there any reason you cannot use SIP over WebSocket
>>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7118 [1])?
>>>
>>> Call signaling will require a lot more information then what is
>>> provided in JSEP. JSEP mostly deals with offer and answer processing.
>>> Signaling will also need to deal with things like who is calling, why
>>> they are calling, transfers, other application specific details. In
>>> other words, I think this is a very bad idea.
>>>
>>> _____________
>>>  Roman Shpount
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM, <ranjit@ranjitvoip.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>  With websockets as a de-facto transport protocol for WebRTC signaling
>>> and JSEP being the format of encoding information, there is a need for
>>> a defining a websocket sub-protocol : jsep. So I would like to know if
>>> there is any interest in the community and also the views from experts
>>> about the need for a websocket-sub protocol for JSEP.
>>>
>>>  The main purpose of defining the sub protocol (jsep) is to make sure
>>> that the WebRTC client (WIC) and WebRTC server (E-CSCF) are receiving
>>> JSEP encoded messages.
>>>
>>>  Thanks
>>>  Ranjit
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  rtcweb mailing list
>>>  rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb [2]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7118
>>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>