Re: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket subprotocol - JSEP over websockets

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Wed, 03 December 2014 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A711A8772 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 11:07:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d9Zvsc7Sckxu for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 11:07:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 057CD1A90D1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 11:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id ex7so32424637wid.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:07:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ijnaWJ0zGHPEEoS9ebtR9csNrsCqTXWaGUGWipswvXE=; b=gCEsrRN9CUEIIFwch7SgW2Qs3qgx3IqHHuH2m7RPeseFNzNeiNMOnbOAa5RH/fj5zL CALLwmOadac0tq/5Q/YMsdDBXZTJJi/tU3Oo4aw4XEiYucQ4v9UeSm/wygBF/pNXPQ8P E0DJuPN7d1bfN8rvw0jb/pebjj4+goP1JS05LzP0UpRpbTXlkd8656aqsaSOBBynb2Rj QdccboPnO4eYTjNxCxBSQauTuxsyddOR8uIBgqx4ytzZLnB2T/+K8n7T/JNQpCzmxi03 hzHMdzrElultmss1bYHfbvOgOelUuBd613xKZ+S7aYrrDgvtJHIkou0n2sbQUFqrrivO bwYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmqYlLEWqAH/0RXh5uM/5ItYvcm+YVzqemqO9rkmLWFuOH1BBrd8Hk82yQ2nstnRwa1foQs
X-Received: by 10.180.108.235 with SMTP id hn11mr47276467wib.14.1417633671741; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:07:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (mail-wg0-f44.google.com. [74.125.82.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cq4sm37449782wjc.35.2014.12.03.11.07.51 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:07:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b13so20710715wgh.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:07:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.21.166 with SMTP id w6mr15431808wie.43.1417633670762; Wed, 03 Dec 2014 11:07:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.70.16 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 11:07:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <554d17d3779404eed3868ae587510e2f@ranjitvoip.com>
References: <6bef1cce67d1c9da7c29d8e0804f2551@ranjitvoip.com> <CAD5OKxs07wAu3V-x2gDnEmoAOEYL-X6njYmCTnfTBQB-YzD02w@mail.gmail.com> <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17828E64BCAB@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <554d17d3779404eed3868ae587510e2f@ranjitvoip.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 14:07:50 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxugW38_D2rMFRE+RAfNEZbF5eSsxzh22K6e4wZ-uW-AQw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: ranjit@ranjitvoip.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d9a865e158d0509548f19
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/ni7KchPgorm5pIon9H6sZnveNQ0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket subprotocol - JSEP over websockets
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 19:07:59 -0000

Ranjit,

If you want to create yet another signaling protocol which uses WebSockets
as a transport, please do. No one is stopping you. Just don't call it JSEP.
Signaling is very different from JSEP, does a lot more then JSEP and
requires a lot of effort to design properly and then map to JSEP API. If
you create something compelling, other people will implement it
and standardize it. At this point, I do not think this group is interested
in creating yet another signaling protocol. I do not think this is
something which is covered by this group charter.

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:57 PM, <ranjit@ranjitvoip.com> wrote:

> Hello all
>
> While I agree SIP over Websockets is default signaling protocol for WebRTC
> while working with IMS, there could be scenarios where WebRTC calls can get
> initiated from non SIP UAs like web browsers which do not support SIP. Then
> in such cases, the following things could happen
> 1) the WebRTC client on the browser can use JSEP to send its signaling
> information over WebSocket,
> 2) the JSEP message would then land on the WebRTC GW over WS.
> 3) This JSEP message would then be converted to a SIP message and then
> sent to IMS core.
> 4) within IMS core, its a regular SIP message
> 5) Again in the reverse direction, WebRTC GW would convert SIP to JSEP
> 6) JSEP message is sent over Websocket to UE.
>
> now we see JSEP messages getting exchanged over Websockets. so if the
> websocket sub-protocol does not define the type as "jsep", then the WebRTC
> GW would not know the incoming message type and hence may discard it or its
> behavior may be uncertain.
>
> Also the JSEP message needs to be enhanced to add more message types
> (along with current OFFER / ANSWER) to be able to map it with standard
> signaling protocol like SIP as defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/
> draft-partha-rtcweb-jsep-sip-01
>
> Regards
> Ranjit
>
> On 2014-12-03 12:40 pm, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) wrote:
>
>> + 1 for using SIP over WebSocket.
>>
>> FROM: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] ON BEHALF OF Roman
>> Shpount
>>  SENT: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 12:38 PM
>>  TO: ranjit@ranjitvoip.com
>>  CC: rtcweb@ietf.org
>>  SUBJECT: Re: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket subprotocol -
>> JSEP over websockets
>>
>> Is there any reason you cannot use SIP over WebSocket
>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7118 [1])?
>>
>> Call signaling will require a lot more information then what is
>> provided in JSEP. JSEP mostly deals with offer and answer processing.
>> Signaling will also need to deal with things like who is calling, why
>> they are calling, transfers, other application specific details. In
>> other words, I think this is a very bad idea.
>>
>> _____________
>>  Roman Shpount
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM, <ranjit@ranjitvoip.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>  With websockets as a de-facto transport protocol for WebRTC signaling
>> and JSEP being the format of encoding information, there is a need for
>> a defining a websocket sub-protocol : jsep. So I would like to know if
>> there is any interest in the community and also the views from experts
>> about the need for a websocket-sub protocol for JSEP.
>>
>>  The main purpose of defining the sub protocol (jsep) is to make sure
>> that the WebRTC client (WIC) and WebRTC server (E-CSCF) are receiving
>> JSEP encoded messages.
>>
>>  Thanks
>>  Ranjit
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  rtcweb mailing list
>>  rtcweb@ietf.org
>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb [2]
>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7118
>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>