Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Mon, 07 November 2011 19:33 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 1EA5021F8B1E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:33:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 LRaTrVB0Lfgd for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:33:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7657C21F8B0E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:33:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F3D39E119; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 20:33:22 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WD9rQKlZ4ZxI; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 20:33:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (62-20-124-50.customer.telia.com [62.20.124.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31BE839E112; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 20:33:21 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4EB83281.6020905@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 20:33:21 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wolfgang Beck <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com>
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxt=k_Mon_GMs1w-bGMgpk12h6ZQ=FkoRVsTp4271iMSLA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNMTgwH-R_jd-AiEJ8tELTeFMNm-bAJohRg2RxD5e+kZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGRBmrAqB3CEWxtaXnryPA5App13S2jJPAt+7HwWZsQFzA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNtoizuRymVMxF4CdiLu1Nju63C0xkWJHjoarpxeLXjyA@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfk=oJJ20GhKQBKA7aspHhUyQ-s+DR-qSi4XV455Nj718w@mail.gmail.com> <9C4C8AE2-4AFF-4553-9D19-556F12AC066E@phonefromhere.com> <9B907E0E-7FE7-4302-BDFA-CEEC12734B8C@edvina.net> <7BF02133-2A7E-48ED-982F-90B7868F9FB9@phonefromhere.com> <4EB74D06.8000006@jesup.org> <CAAJUQMihjTRgpO8hjgiYz5iLbWTncdXFO8nnRE9VDRND36-b2w@mail.gmail.com> <4EB7FAED.4070104@jesup.org> <4EB806F7.2090603@alvestrand.no> <CAAJUQMjcoR+epj03GWyAmZbdLPt87KHACEGH7oQubaGm7CTZUQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAJUQMjcoR+epj03GWyAmZbdLPt87KHACEGH7oQubaGm7CTZUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
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, 07 Nov 2011 19:33:24 -0000

On 11/07/2011 05:53 PM, Wolfgang Beck wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Harald Alvestrand<harald@alvestrand.no>  wrote:
> [on SIP-style forking]
>> If we were doing a greenfield application, I'd let the server tell all the
>> possible endpoints that they should set up a connection to the original
>> caller, and forget about the caller calling anyone.
>>
>> The difference between caller and callee is a question of your level of
>> abstraction.....
> That's the kind of innovative thinking I thought RTCWEB was all about.
It's also something that is eminently doable with the currently proposed 
API.
> And this forking discussion is a good example how the requirement to
> have interop between different RTCWEB apps and/or SIP is holding us
> back. Ditch the trapezoid and do greenfield.
>
>
> Wolfgang Beck
>