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

[Erik Lagerway <[e-mail]>]

+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 <[e-mail]> 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, <[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]] ON BEHALF OF Roman
>>> Shpount
>>>  SENT: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 12:38 PM
>>>  TO: [e-mail]
>>>  CC: [e-mail]
>>>  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, <[e-mail]> 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
>>>  [e-mail]
>>>  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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>