IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling: Glare handling

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Tue, 18 October 2011 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 3D24021F8CA9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 4gEnoYCqI5DZ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 987AD21F8BFE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=1257; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1318965908; x=1320175508; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=SwitDa4mJsei4Y24obowLZGk7sJY4ZbWXay5BcG3fGw=; b=VM+JY6k/DI6pFwv/TRUpgYcreuxjOl1/QeRM1Hq0DVu/qSsgXmdkm3Ap HynFqULjgrynnTyYZejAHrg+S4d0iOlLVTSR8TfoBMQRuMeYga5UFwBnN w/VVep52Z1t+vz9OncTHnDYK0nJXjWJv/PB6Q31zWzGDaURmBGnNjcpZt 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAP/RnU6rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABEqG6BBYFuAQEBAwESAWYFCwtGVwYTIodel2wBnl6HOmEEiAKLe5F2
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,366,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="8651057"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2011 19:25:08 +0000
Received: from dhcp-171-70-217-213.cisco.com (dhcp-171-70-217-213.cisco.com [171.70.217.213]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9IJP8eC019583; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:25:08 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfk0C+TnbRzdTuvjoZajBLpWON9K6V2C8duqPORR5LSbPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:25:06 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9685EE86-535B-4E6E-A241-AE0865DFDCF3@cisco.com>
References: <15B0E3AD-3086-499A-8E79-7AE58B3376C4@cisco.com> <4E9D8D82.707@ericsson.com> <CALiegfmuxvwqJMppy4DC7162T4TrCjM3O_FnfpyNujDFuy9o+A@mail.gmail.com> <44B1D328-3875-4E82-9338-AB223E09BB8A@cisco.com> <CALiegfk0C+TnbRzdTuvjoZajBLpWON9K6V2C8duqPORR5LSbPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling: Glare handling
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:25:09 -0000

On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:47 , Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:

> 2011/10/18 Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>:
>> People mean different things by realtime but when talking about it, I think it is important to keep in mind it is mostly the media that needs to be realtime and perhaps the signaling to set up such media is not as does not have the same level of constraints.
> 
> Yes, but it's not just about signaling realtime. HTTP polling means
> unnecesary traffic from client to server. In the other side, WebSocket
> (bidirectional communication without polling) allow the server
> communicating to the client when it has something to say.

All I'm trying to say is that I think there will be applications that use websockets and there will be applications that don't - they will have different impact on servers and performance. There are plenty of web based IM systems operating today that get pretty good performance without websockets. Clearly websockets will have a bunch of desirable features for this sort of signaling.  


> 
> Also I expect that WebSocket will be very common and extended the day
> RTCweb becomes a reality.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> -- 
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email