Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Thu, 30 May 2013 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 1920B21F86CA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 14:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.078
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 6QASFzqC5UXX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 14:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x22c.google.com (mail-qa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD3C21F93BD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2013 14:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id hu16so96791qab.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2013 14:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=o71DNFZw5w0cICvQ7VPoF+WUXb9Ql2dj+Ct6v6dQ85o=; b=paavwwCGMiLJvwd4GD5DA3WkVzoA0OddSxCcNAvFDqXg6GiN8ervMMqM1hCcEo2Mjv dlBjBdgIpRxAdoohsU6d9BWeCpIshJ46W4oPeSN59oZJqwC4yrn1+ZiYy6fDdMp1b3nV AyuOx0VkMxlqc05Nv0BQECyWPDuMhfQwAWlhAuGDKsHLp8HcwbIkakwhbbE0cqzNjNOZ muMg7vGO6E7Fy9J70KdCV2T5FGjr/iB9VXAStEpI2vVOmtizAe5Z84vf7a5rI2hkBM/O jJ08rkIJOrTmhAOrHYfXIbH/TPP5UxLj8AlCvOi4NZKQlsOTqXlihqCbBTG7M2UvZFOX fqbA==
X-Received: by 10.224.4.74 with SMTP id 10mr7975884qaq.38.1369949639246; Thu, 30 May 2013 14:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.26.103 with HTTP; Thu, 30 May 2013 14:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51A7BEBE.2040302@omnitor.se>
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <51A7BEBE.2040302@omnitor.se>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 23:33:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfk6XchF4U1Orpd6oJsydz-VGtBQ=CwaWrPa_KjsaQynYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmCEjkUOJPzLEFOvjsjU1qS/0V9uHz8oD6FLwV4Hrryij2ZsBZb5gAQL6JmQE7BzJUZ4GL7
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan
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: Thu, 30 May 2013 21:34:01 -0000

2013/5/30 Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>se>:
> I find it to be good to have a specified ambition for legacy
> interoperability.
> But I cannot see how we could specify it without RTP based real-time text on
> the SIP side.

> The No Plan would just need to be extended with reasoning about m=text for
> RTP based real-time text.
>
> (It possibly need some text about text messaging also if there is any
> interest in that. Someone else need to argue for that. Is it sdp -
> negotiated MSRP that would be the natural choice, requiring a discussion of
> data channel inclusion in the draft?)


In the Web there are lot of ways for sending any kind of messages. In
WebRTC we are not limited to the "RTP" channel to communicate with
others (peers or servers). In WebRTC the destination of a "media
session" is not mandated to be a PSTN phone or PSTN server.

Here there is a "web context", something that does not exist in VoIP
protocols which are just limited to the signaling capabilities of the
protocol itself. Here the application using WebRTC (a JavaScript
application) is a custom app designed to work with a custom server
side (the web server), and each website will choose and design how
their client applications (the JS of their web pages) communicate with
their web servers and other clients. This includes usage of HTTP
requets, AJAX, WebSocket or whatever. We are not constrained to the
"media channel" anymore, this is not the PSTN with funny DTMFs for
all.

So honestly I don't understand why WebRTC should care about "text
messaging via RTP", and I really hope that "MSRP" word is never
included in any RTCWEB WG specification. IMHO it's already enough
having 3 proposals attempting to adapt SDP into WebRTC requirements.

Gateways are required, in any way, for connecting WebRTC and the world
outside (SIP, PSTN, etc), let's leave those gateways to do the "magic"
instead of proposing that a browser can send text messages via RTP to
a SIP phone.

Just my opinion.

Regards.


--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>