Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Mon, 17 October 2011 07:45 UTC
Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
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 5DDDE21F8B35 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 xgcoCYTIv84g for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BBFA21F8B33 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail05.sonusnet.com (sonusmail05.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.155]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9H7jeBE005300; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 03:45:40 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail05.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 03:45:05 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC8CA0.AD35D50C"
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:15:15 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF511598EE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABRok6n33QK0Si1Y0kT7+U0zgAWsJ4d5GENK_KL-JPx5a4erYg@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AcyE58qiQsg22CmbRQ+ec/AyTlzr8wHt+TLw
References: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E8AC222.4050308@alvestrand.no><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14CE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CALiegf=ejF2kUC1m=74o9eprF1M8wYtgE-Crwa1x14rzDOf+gQ@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14FD@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><393F1888-F834-4DAE-B6B1-1C5D35EE3292@phonefromhere.com><CAOg=WDcC9t2KhQUg0gDJ60gO_2mNyMv9HKt=otCdPDfj4TnoTg@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F152B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CABRok6mM7TfbLgGhoQvdRh1Kwoi5BhRweLcqWg7VZOFnaa8VOw@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1532@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CABRok6n33QK0Si1Y0kT7+U0zgAWsJ4d5GENK_KL-JPx5a4erYg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2011 07:45:05.0876 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFC94140:01CC8CA0]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
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, 17 Oct 2011 07:45:14 -0000
<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. </snip> 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. Thanks Partha From: neils@vipadia.com [mailto:neils@vipadia.com] On Behalf Of Neil Stratford Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 5:24 PM To: Ravindran Parthasarathi Cc: samuel; Tim Panton; rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com> wrote: Browser to browser real time communication is no different from other real-time communication apart from the existing web infrastructure. In case your argument is to use the existing web infrastructure like websocket, I agree with you. It is different to traditional RTC - we have a javascript execution engine intimately tied in to every client. This completely changes the solution space. But in case it is not the reason, Could you please list the reason for new signaling protocol requirement . I already listed them: - No server side infrastructure (SIP proxies etc) to maintain or configure. - No special understanding in the server side web application beyond discovering peer identities you might want to communicate with. 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. Neil
- [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signa… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… samuel
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Neil Stratford
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Neil Stratford
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Saul Ibarra Corretge
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Neil Stratford
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Saul Ibarra Corretge
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Roy, Radhika R USA CIV (US)
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Avasarala, Ranjit
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Avasarala, Ranjit
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Roy, Radhika R USA CIV (US)
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Asveren, Tolga
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Roy, Radhika R USA CIV (US)
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Roy, Radhika R USA CIV (US)
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Asveren, Tolga
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Asveren, Tolga
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Jim McEachern
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Asveren, Tolga
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Asveren, Tolga
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- [rtcweb] Gateway need and usecase [was RE: Review… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Gateway need and usecase [was RE: Re… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Neil Stratford
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard s… Neil Stratford
- [rtcweb] UI for getUserMedia() Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Gateway need and usecase [was RE: Re… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Gateway need and usecase [was RE: Re… José Luis Millán