Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :No Plan )

Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> Mon, 03 June 2013 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
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 79E1121F86F5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 05:00:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 AinAsjv8IKR1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 05:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vsp-authed-02-02.binero.net (vsp-authed02.binero.net [195.74.38.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C02F821F8CB5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 05:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.binero.se (unknown [195.74.38.28]) by vsp-authed-02-02.binero.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTP; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:00:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.50.38] (h79n2fls31o933.telia.com [212.181.137.79]) (Authenticated sender: gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se) by smtp-04-01.atm.binero.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3E6043A0F7; Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:00:06 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <51AC8547.1060400@omnitor.se>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:00:07 +0200
From: Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?ScOxYWtpIEJheiBDYXN0aWxsbw==?= <ibc@aliax.net>
References: <51A65017.4090502@jitsi.org> <51A7BEBE.2040302@omnitor.se> <CALiegfk6XchF4U1Orpd6oJsydz-VGtBQ=CwaWrPa_KjsaQynYQ@mail.gmail.com> <51A7CD81.2060805@gmail.com> <51A835D7.9060603@omnitor.se> <CALiegfm4R=3mGqTOxBfvCfnsRg=fe=XapA6s-QQNjrsAkg5HEA@mail.gmail.com> <51A8F3EF.9080702@alum.mit.edu> <CALiegfkfz=qVM_wB21BBOypMTwTjkyG97zAmzHVpA6WHK2DA6w@mail.gmail.com> <51AC7D4F.6090708@omnitor.se> <CALiegfkxfb4qk+bS_EWbcxkNv-BSOwDw6eR-b86Z-hyMY60z3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfkxfb4qk+bS_EWbcxkNv-BSOwDw6eR-b86Z-hyMY60z3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060809020905030001060507"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTT (was :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: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 12:00:21 -0000

On 2013-06-03 13:38, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2013/6/3 Gunnar Hellstrom<gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>se>:
>> >As I see it, RTCWEB has a goal to enable audio, video and data communication
>> >between a user in Website-A and a user in Website-B.
> I strongly disagree. A WG won't change what the WWW wants, ant the WWW
> has shown us, during years, a way of communication without real
> interaction between different websites. Specifically users logged into
> site-A don't directly interact with users logged into site-B, instead
> site-A embed a JS code of site-B into the web, so users of site-B can
> use site-B features (*same*  JS app client in both users).
>
>
Iñaki,
I disagree.

The use cases draft includes a case titled:


        4.2.10
        <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-10#section-4.2.10>.
        Simple video communication service with inter-operator calling

See: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-10#page-9

With RTCWEB, the web takes the step towards 
inter-provider-communication. I think that is one big reason why so much 
interest is shown to RTCWEB and WebRTC.

/Gunnar