W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2013

RE: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser Implementers

From: Martin Steinmann <martin@ezuce.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:20:35 -0400
To: "'tim panton'" <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Cc: "'Martin Thomson'" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "'Parthasarathi R'" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>, "'cowwoc'" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, "'Christer Holmberg'" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, 'Iñaki Baz Castillo' <ibc@aliax.net>, "'Robin Raymond'" <robin@hookflash.com>, "'Roman Shpount'" <roman@telurix.com>, "'Adam Bergkvist'" <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, "'Ted Hardie'" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "'piranna_gmail.com'" <piranna@gmail.com>, "'public-webrtc_w3.org'" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, "'Eric Rescorla'" <ekr@rtfm.com>
Message-ID: <034001ce79a3$f7859500$e690bf00$@ezuce.com>
>From: tim panton [mailto:thp@westhawk.co.uk] 
>Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 1:05 PM
>To: Martin Steinmann
>Cc: 'Martin Thomson'; 'Parthasarathi R'; 'cowwoc'; 'Christer Holmberg';
'Iñaki Baz Castillo'; 'Robin Raymond'; 'Roman Shpount'; 'Adam Bergkvist';
'Ted >Hardie'; 'piranna_gmail.com'; 'public-webrtc_w3.org'; 'Eric Rescorla'
>Subject: Re: [SPAM] RE: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser
>On 5 Jul 2013, at 17:59, "Martin Steinmann" <martin@ezuce.com> wrote:
>>> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, July 05, 2013 12:50 PM
>>> To: Martin Steinmann
>>> Cc: Parthasarathi R; cowwoc; Christer Holmberg; Iñaki Baz Castillo; 
>>> Robin Raymond; Roman Shpount; Adam Bergkvist; Ted Hardie; 
>>> piranna_gmail.com; >public-webrtc_w3.org; Eric Rescorla
>>> Subject: Re: VS: Teleco Integrators vs Web Developers vs Browser 
>>> Implementers
>>> On 5 July 2013 09:41, Martin Steinmann <martin@ezuce.com> wrote:
>>>> If you abstract from proprietary solutions, can you make a list of what
else is used other than SIP and XMPP?  We are talking about a standard here,
>aren't >we?
>>> That's an excellent question.
>>> Most Web applications don't need and really don't want a standard when
it comes to signaling.  It's too restrictive.  And most of the examples I've
seen >>don't use any sort of standardized signaling.  That list includes
almost every WebRTC example in existence, with the exception of a small few.
>>> That's why we explicitly state that signaling is out of scope for rtcweb
and WebRTC.
>> If so this is really sad as it will make WebRTC pretty useless for all
enterprise applications where interop with anything but itself is desired.
We have >enough proprietary communications applications in the consumer
space already and don't need yet another one.  I am also sad to see that
this group seems >to have deteriorated into a debate club after the WebRTC
conference in Atlanta, after very promising progress had been made until
then.  Please get back >on track.
>In your enterprise :
>Does your web-based HR app use a standardised signalling to transfer data
between the browser and the server?
>Does your web-based calendar app use the same standardised signalling ?
>I'm guessing they don't - but that they interop with a standardised
server-to-server protocol which is not the same as is used to the browser.

If you want to solve 'world hunger' you will likely never get to any API
anyone will agree with.  What I would suggest is that the group gets back to
focus.  The primary application is voice and video at least in my book and
the standard protocols for that are SIP and XMPP and I haven't heard
anything to the contrary on this list.  Avoiding gateways and media
anchoring points and enable seamless enterprise interop between different
devices might cost you a few more bits on the wire or a bit more complexity
for your proprietary app, but so be it.  Otherwise, create your own browser
plugin and you can do whatever.
Received on Friday, 5 July 2013 17:20:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:34 UTC