Re: [rtcweb] A plea for simplicity, marketability - and... who are we designing RTCWEB for?

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Fri, 21 October 2011 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B9A21F8B62 for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.635
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QbgnYv+aEQTB for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C3B21F8B12 for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so4349229vcb.31 for <>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id p17mr1119777vcq.41.1319223889998; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:04:49 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <>
To: Randell Jesup <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A plea for simplicity, marketability - and... who are we designing RTCWEB for?
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: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:04:51 -0000

2011/10/21 Randell Jesup <>:
> This is the rough equivalent to saying "instead of exchanging email in a standard format, and letting people use whatever client/webmail-client they want to read it; if you want to read an email from a gmail user you should log into gmail using their interface; from an aol user log into AOL and their interface, etc.

This is because SMTP is a successful protocol that exists from long
time ago and allows each user to have a globaly reachable
identificator (a mailto: URI). Will RTCweb define an unique
identificator for each user in the world? Not at all. RTCweb will be
implemented by independent websites, so each website decides the
identificator grammar of its users. Please don't try to make analogy
between SMTP and RTCweb because it's not the same.

If I cannot make a VoIP call from my SIP client to a Gtalk user
(without using a protocol gateway), why should we define that a
Facebook user should be able to make a RTCweb call to a Twitter user
without requiring a protocol gateway?

At this point, I think we should have some folks from WWW world in
this WG. They could give us some lessons about how WWW works and stop
us thinking as telcos (remember that telcos have never succedeed in
the web, we are like a bull in a china shop).

> Oh, and history, phonebooks, etc would all be separate.

RTCweb is not a generic and personal phone in the browser, so there is
no "phonebook" concept here. Don't you realize that you are clearly
thinking as a telco now? :)

More stuf:

- When you press the "I like" button of Facebook in an external page,
such link points to Facebook servers.

- When you want to write something in Twitter (regardless you use the
Twitter website or any Twitter desktop/mobile client) you are
connecting to Twitter servers.

- When a website includes an embedded Youtube video, such video is
loaded from Youtube servers, not from the website in which it's

This is the History of WWW and the reason of its success:
- NO standards (others than HTTP, HTML and JavaScript).
- Do whatever you want without reading IETF specs.
- Innovate without deep knowledge.

Said that, mandating the format in the wire is the key of no-success.
Even more: mandating anything apart from the RTCweb JS API and the
RTP/ICE design is the key of no-success. I'm pretty sure of that.


Iñaki Baz Castillo