Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Action items enclosed!)

Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> Wed, 05 October 2011 02:14 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
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 F1B6421F8C2F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 XOLWeNY+obZt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.skype.net (mx.skype.net [78.141.177.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0798421F8C28 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 19:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.skype.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ED0A16F6; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:17:15 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=skype.net; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mx; bh=wVUHyOQtyBEd0h h+6j8qBW3StL8=; b=CuiNneJs63MO+EGkySJMKGJbYqGWnR0DR00A6Mu0O4qJHM BEAu3+JAPUzBHfi9PM37pdz0UQ48dxpF7fJPI8ypl2sEm5j/bBF8A/w34CUXzPtZ 2ZciXUuwX6ChbbsJSW/Vq/XmgMpFLpLb7pPpzZaiVHVBVOiNYv+x0N1J+LQI4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=skype.net; h=message-id:date:from :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mx; b=Pl0VPx51qlxXr45bF3d94i H50Ybs3he3mBCbmRqrHKk/ggmLqJVof9cz1wFNW1hCiSg9TtepvB//RdZfcuqR4w 6whkbzezyto5Y0sjnPpQL8wSSpS5sinp5P2cuDoJcwP1kQlwqS64udapNEbwv3LN gyyRFBlfsEzZBJbQeO1qE=
Received: from zimbra.skype.net (zimbra.skype.net [78.141.177.82]) by mx.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D41C7FC; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:17:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D503506F2C; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:17:15 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at lu2-zimbra.skype.net
Received: from zimbra.skype.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.skype.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JBlbMxgpZPx1; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:17:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.10.155.2] (unknown [198.202.199.254]) by zimbra.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9B333506E4D; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 04:17:13 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E8BBDDF.3010100@skype.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:15:59 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBi9BzDu=WOq3RG-o5nbfnUTftDg3LRBU3DFh=Kc4W5ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBi9BzDu=WOq3RG-o5nbfnUTftDg3LRBU3DFh=Kc4W5ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Action items enclosed!)
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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:14:12 -0000

On 10/4/2011 9:01 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> At today's Chairs call, Cullen, Magnus and I had a discussion of how 
> to make progress on the signaling discussion.  We feel the mailing 
> list discussion needs to have more concrete proposals in order to make 
> progress, and so we're putting forward the following:
>
> 1) If you plan to put forward a draft proposing a concrete solution in 
> this space, please send your name to the mailing list with that intent 
> by October 7th *THIS FRIDAY*.

I'm going to nominate myself here.

>
> 2) Please have a -00 draft out for discussion by October 14th (the 
> following Friday).  This is to allow for a discussion and update prior 
> to the -01 deadlines.
>

I believe that defining a signaling protocol between web browsers and 
web servers for RTCWEB is out of scope, so I believe there is no draft 
required... unless you really want a -00 draft that says "do nothing".

I believe that defining a signaling protocol between web servers and 
other web servers for RTCWEB federation is out for scope for "version 
1", so I believe it is not appropriate to submit a draft at this time... 
unless you really want a -00 draft that says "do nothing for now, use 
any of the existing protocols until then."


>
> This is aggressive, but we feel we need to have at least -00s for the 
> different ideas in place in order to make real progress.
>

As I pointed out in my presentation at the interim, standardizing the 
protocol between the web browser and the web server != the protocol 
between the web browser and the javascript running in it. And so even if 
you want SDP on the wire, you don't necessarily need SDP in the API... 
and vice versa.

So in this case, I believe standardizing the protocol on the wire for 
signaling is out of scope. And we're already making good progress on the 
wire protocol for media (and media consent).

Matthew Kaufman