Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
"Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com> Wed, 05 October 2011 18:30 UTC
Return-Path: <tasveren@sonusnet.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 579551F0C5F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 PIvKdNR6lPUp for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C059621F8CE9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail04.sonusnet.com (sonusmail04.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.98]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p95IYJ8q007598; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:34:19 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC838C.75CF5716"
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:27:37 -0400
Message-ID: <033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E703CC78FF@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGRJSds3n-GdYF=bsOxGhikf=i=7xLdbBZ2uxQV3HS+2Dw@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
Thread-Index: AcyDcyXMiNUNaOm7T9aS8icNuCRzkgAFstKg
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><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F137B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><226C9800-9791-465A-B519-40935E2D135F@phonefromhere.com><4E8B1B86.2080805@jesup.org><BLU152-W476B3866CE31803056E3C93FB0@phx.gbl><4E8BD7B8.3080408@jesup.org> <4E8BDD6D.5030706@skype.net><4E8BE49B.6050202@jesup.org> <CAD6AjGRJSds3n-GdYF=bsOxGhikf=i=7xLdbBZ2uxQV3HS+2Dw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@sonusnet.com>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:30:44 -0000
Making things simple/accessible to a wide range of programmers is a good idea but then does this mean that a signaling protocol (even a simple one) should be baked in the browser? For example, if I have a webserver allowing people to play Battleships and want to add voice support for players, why do I need to use SIP (or something as complex as it)? What I am interested in would be limited to two-party simple voice communication (no forking, no renegotiation, no early media, no reliable responses etc....). A simple signaling protocol between JS and WebServer should be good enough AFAICS. There could be some JS libraries built for this purpose and one can use whichever one prefers (or develop its own). Arguing about potential issues with a JS SIP library in the context of simple use cases does not sound fair to me for this reason. The requirement of simplicity for the no-signaling-protocol-in the-browser approach would be: Keep the API exposing media related information/attributes as simple as possible (but no simpler). One could argue that the definition of "simple" includes things I excluded above, e.g. forking. To me, simple means things similar to the use case above but I doubt there is consensus on that. Thanks, Tolga ________________________________ From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Byrne Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:26 AM To: Randell Jesup Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)] On Oct 4, 2011 10:05 PM, "Randell Jesup" <randell-ietf@jesup.org> wrote: > > On 10/5/2011 12:30 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> >> On 10/4/2011 9:06 PM, Randell Jesup wrote: >>> >>> I think there will be a lot of small-to-medium users adding chat, >>> building games, etc, who care little or not at all about the PSTN. >>> Those are the ones who I worry about; they wouldn't realize there are >>> issues with glare (totally ignoring PSTN) or that forking can be >>> complex. They want a simple, one-stop-shopping solution for adding >>> voice/video/data to their sites and games, etc. >> >> >> Ok, so they don't know there's issues with glare or that forking is >> hard. Does that mean that we solve forking in the browser? > > >>> Does this mean we *have* to bake in some sort of signalling? No, it >>> doesn't. It is an _argument_ for providing some type of signalling as >>> a baseline default; or if not, then for starting a project to provide >>> that. >>> >>> Note that I said "baseline". I did *not* say "can handle all the >>> intricacies of the PSTN well". >> >> >> So does "baseline" include handling the fact that "forking is hard", or >> does baseline not address forking either? > > > If you want me to answer that question: yes, I'd include support for some sort of resolution of forking. Enough to avoid getting into trouble, only. > > >>> It could be something far simpler than >>> SIP or XMPP, etc, or it could be a very dumbed-down version of one. >>> These small users (as noted) need something to provide the basics, and >>> to handle certain complexities that simply arise from normal usage >>> patterns and features (like forking). Being able to access the PSTN at >>> all using this would be a plus - but it would not be critical in my mind. >> >> >> This still doesn't mean that the browser needs to become a SIP phone, >> any more than it needed a map rendering engine for Google Maps to exist >> or an IMAP client for Gmail to exist. > > > I am in *no way* saying it needs to be a SIP phone. I'm saying "provide a simple-to-use basic signalling method which it totally optional to use, and which handles the basics needed of almost any signalling method (forking, glare, etc)". Nothing about phones, nothing about PSTN. > > We also don't ship browsers that consist of a canvas element and a JS interpreter, though you *could* build all websites that way (more or less), and some do (GMail and the like aren't far from it). But most site authors are glad they don't have to start with a bucket of rocks to build a castle *as their only option*. > I agree with Randal here. Let's make simple things simple, which does not preclude making advanced and novel things possible. Cb > >>> And, as I mentioned, it could be external JS - but then it has be more >>> solid to start with. For these simple uses - say chat with other users >>> on someones special-interest website, 2 and multiplayer gaming, etc - >>> we should try to pull together the minimum things any app/service >>> developer would need to be prepared for. I think any service that >>> allows someone to log in from multiple devices has to handle forking >>> in some manner. Glare is always possible. What else? I'd like to see >>> simple conferencing. Perhaps the minimum is simple enough that it >>> makes more sense to develop a new, very simple signalling JS module, >>> and use it in examples. This would limit the downside from not updating. >> >> >> Or create a good *platform* for building RTC apps and let the developers >> build things you've never imagined. I think that's a far better outcome >> than building a SIP phone into the browser and then discovering that >> most people don't want to just make phone calls. > > > Again: I'm not suggesting "build in a SIP phone", and how does my proposal in any way tie the hands of someone who wants to build it themselves? > > >>> The advantage of basing it on something known is that the basics of >>> all these protocols are well-understood. >>> >>> I'll paraphrase Harald (and many others in other contexts): make >>> simple things simple, make complex things possible. >> >> >> The latter is far more important than the former. If making simple >> things simple makes complex things significantly harder or impossible, >> you're not building a platform for innovation. > > > Ok, but in this case I don't want to complicate the later - so you're addressing a point I'm not making. Please consider re-reading my posting with that in mind. > > > -- > Randell Jesup > randell-ietf@jesup.org > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Bernard Aboba
- [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol for … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Victor Pascual
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Prakash
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol for … gao.yang2
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Avasarala, Ranjit
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Soo-Hyun Choi
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … José Luis Millán
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Henry Sinnreich
- [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was R… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Jim McEachern
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Avasarala, Ranjit
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Tim Panton
- [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON (was: About de… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… cbran
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol … Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… José Luis Millán
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] ICE and security Dan Wing
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON (was: Abou… Henry Sinnreich
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Jim McEachern
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON Magnus Westerlund
- [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb default … Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Igor Faynberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Timothy B. Terriberry
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… José Luis Millán
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON (was: Abou… Elwell, John
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] SDP offer/answer vs. JSON Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Henry Sinnreich
- [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signaling… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Data Transport, was: Re: RTCWeb defa… Randell Jesup
- [rtcweb] SCTP for data channels in rtcweb Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] SCTP for data channels in rtcweb Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Jozsef Vass
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Jozsef Vass
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Jozsef Vass
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] "20 lines" (Re: RTCWeb default signa… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Jim McEachern
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Asveren, Tolga
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [w… Saul Ibarra Corretge