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

"Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> Sat, 17 September 2011 08:24 UTC

Return-Path: <oej@edvina.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 1BAC921F8AFB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 01:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.236
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
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 4rOJYuEj5PLT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 01:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp7.webway.se (smtp7.webway.se [212.3.14.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7562A21F8AF1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 01:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.40.24] (ns.webway.se [87.96.134.125]) by smtp7.webway.se (Postfix) with ESMTPA id E5F3E754BCE4; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 08:27:01 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E73C056.2090003@skype.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:27:03 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <253421CC-AC2C-4896-8F63-68752F15C621@edvina.net>
References: <CALiegfnOCxyTo9ffQ272+ncdu5UdgrtDT-dn10BWGTZMEjZoCg@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C0A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <05CAC192-E462-421F-B1E5-B78DC8F60306@ag-projects.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C93@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E73C056.2090003@skype.net>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Cc: 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: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 08:24:47 -0000

16 sep 2011 kl. 23:32 skrev Matthew Kaufman:

> On 9/16/11 1:56 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>> Hi Saul,
>> 
>> I really didn't get your argument fully because in case there is no default signaling protocol, it is unavoidable to have island of devices without gateways but you argue other way around.
> Browsers cannot talk to each other without at least a web server to serve up the application (HTML and Javascript) and a server over which to exchange the ICE signaling information, so they won't be talking to each other "on their own" anyway.
They will be able to use the rtcweb data channel, which is a concern.


> 
> Once you have that, RTCWEB calling is no more or less an island than web-based messaging services. Some of them let users compose messages that stay within the "walled garden" of the service (and that is their choice), others let users compose email which is exchanged with other services over standard protocols like SMTP.
> 
>> 
>> I specifically asked for the scope of your opinion on RTCWeb work is between browser-to-browser
> 
> RTCWEB needs to specify the browser-to-browser media and the APIs by which that media channel is created and controlled. That is all.
According to the wg charter there's a data channel ability too.

> 
>>  or browser-to-other end-point to know whether parallel universe has to be build or not.
> 
> For the media channel, it would be helpful if the "browser-to-browser" media uses a standard such as RTP so that "browser-to-other" can be done directly, without media gateways.
> 
> For signaling, this is not nearly so important a requirement, and in fact conflicts with the goals of providing flexible APIs that allow developers to use web browsers as a development platform... an operating system and runtime, rather than a pre-built "phone" as I've said before.
> 
>>  In case there is no default signaling protocol, it is impossible to communicate between browser-to-endpoint without gateways.
> 
> Signaling? True.
> 
> Media? Hopefully not.
Data which can carry signalling - maybe...

Sorry to keep repeating the data channel issue, but it disturbes me a bit.

/O