Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)])

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <> Tue, 27 September 2011 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22FC21F8E06 for <>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.705
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.705 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lpPQQWRBYfvC for <>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA80821F8CEC for <>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 5001) id 042F7B01B0; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:26:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CB2CB017D; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:26:32 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:26:31 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1086@sonus inmail02 m><><> <> <>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Jozsef Vass <>,
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)])
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:23:54 -0000


On Sep 26, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:

> Hi Inaki,
> <snip> 
> Ok, but such protocol should be carried within HTTP or WebSocket, rather than being a native SIP/XMPP/whatever-custom-protocol built-in the web browsers. Do we agree on this? I think the answer is "not", so please continue reading. </snip>
> Your assumption is wrong here. When I ask for standard signaling protocol, websocket will be one of the alternative to considered for further discussion in case there is an agreement for having standard signaling protocol.

I'd consider WebSocket the transport, not the signaling protocol per se. After reading your last emails I'm not exactly sure about what you are proposing. Let me state a starting point: two browsers can't communicate with each other without meeting somewhere, like a server for example. Both are behind NAT and there is no discovery mechanism, so the only way for them to communicate is to visit a website, for example.

Now, if two users (browsers) are already in the same website, they'd have downloaded the same JS libraries from the web server, as Inaki pointed out, so they may speak SIP, XMPP or whatever signaling protocol.

What I think you are suggesting is that RTCweb-enabled browsers include some sort of signaling library built-in, is this correct? Even if they do that you'll need server cooperation to reach each other, and even in the multiplayer game example, you are always connected to a server.

Thus, I strongly disagree to trying to include any signaling protocol as part of RTCweb. Developers may choose a JS library to do that, or even develop their own, and deploy it in the web servers that power their site.


Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects