IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 19 September 2011 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.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 27AB221F8C08 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 bYOWCeypvHWV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f45.google.com (mail-qw0-f45.google.com [209.85.216.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C97D21F8C04 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwg2 with SMTP id 2so6088569qwg.4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.72.50 with SMTP id a18mr1963199vdv.426.1316440997402; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.187.7 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E77495E.4000409@jesup.org>
References: <CALiegfnOCxyTo9ffQ272+ncdu5UdgrtDT-dn10BWGTZMEjZoCg@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C0A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <05CAC192-E462-421F-B1E5-B78DC8F60306@ag-projects.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C93@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <16880306-5B3A-4EFD-ADE4-1201138D9182@acmepacket.com> <8584590C8D7DD141AA96D01920FC6C698C896B71@gbplmail03.genband.com> <CA+9kkMAwnnKKO5+q6ey4Z0QNxax1QF21vVtw8FNsHy_rmfenjQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E76E078.5020708@jesup.org> <8548CBBD-4E12-48F3-BC59-341FF45EF22F@acmepacket.com> <4E77495E.4000409@jesup.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:03:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfkTdCAeEdZbXP1Y9L6i4Anjrgf1CG6ZNj35WGoHL3p_Ew@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
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, 19 Sep 2011 14:00:55 -0000

2011/9/19 Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>:
> And while I suggest a simple SIP set be included, if we were certain a "standard" JS lib were freely available and solid enough, that would make the argument stronger for a JS lib.

Hi. Are you proposing that browsers should/would speak SIP for media
signaling? That would require a signaling central point (think about
NAT), does it mean that web sites should provide a like-"SIP proxy"
within their infraestructure? (think about web sites hosted in shared
datacenter by an Apache or other web server not behind the control of
the web developer).

Regards.



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email