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: Iñaki 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>: > 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>
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Sergio Garcia Murillo
- [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Martin Thomson
- [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - PT based MUX Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Mark Rejhon
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan) Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan) Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was Re: No Plan) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Barry Dingle
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Iñaki Baz Castillo
- [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was: No… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Translating Plan A into No Plan (Was… Roni Even
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Christer Holmberg
- [rtcweb] Repair Flows and No Plan (Was: No Plan) Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) BeckW
- Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan ) Gunnar Hellstrom
- Re: [rtcweb] Repair Flows and No Plan (Was: No Pl… Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Emil Ivov
- [rtcweb] Plan xyz discussions; MMUSIC <> RTCweb R… Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] No Plan - but what's the proposal Peter Thatcher