Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol

"Roy, Radhika R USA CIV (US)" <> Mon, 17 October 2011 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C3921F8546 for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.433
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.166, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id phQ1JSfBSKSh for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B743821F85B9 for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 06:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:50:48 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:50:47 -0500
From: "Roy, Radhika R USA CIV (US)" <>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>, Neil Stratford <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AcyE58qiQsg22CmbRQ+ec/AyTlzr8wHt+TLwAAzwHoA=
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:50:44 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <><><><><><><><><><> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:51:02 -0000


If servers are intelligent enough to "route" the calls among themselves, there are no need for any proxies.

So, proxies are needed for "routing" in the application layer.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Ravindran Parthasarathi
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 3:45 AM
To: Neil Stratford
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol

<snip> My argument is that if we want the ultimate goal of simplicity for end user web developers then we should minimise everything they have to touch - and that includes removing any requirement for server side infrastructure beyond the basic bare minimum, which would mean no SIP proxies, no websocket servers etc etc.


But as I said, we don't need to standardise a protocol at all, so we shouldn't. If we are lucky we'll see a whole spectrum of solutions.



Without server interaction, it is not possible for browser to establish the session with other browser. Unlike other endpoint, browser needs server to provide routing or  perform the authentication or atleast configuration information. AFAIK, RTCWeb client to RTCWeb client is not the motive of the work. If so, SIP is the IETF protocol between RTCWeb client to RTCWeb client which MUST be recommended because of the UA to UA communication nature. IOW, RTCWeb server signaling plays the key role which calls for standardization as browser & RTCWebserver is not required from the same vendor.