W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > October 2011

RE: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling

From: Roy, Radhika R USA CIV (US) <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:49:06 +0000
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
CC: Jonathan Rosenberg <jonathan.rosenberg@skype.net>
Message-ID: <8486C8728176924BAF5BDB2F7D7EEDDF3E091C38@ucolhp4d.easf.csd.disa.mil>
I believe it may be B2BUA along with proxy-capability that a Web server might have. However, Cullen and Jonathan might clearify this.


-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ravindran Parthasarathi
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 6:28 PM
To: Cullen Jennings; rtcweb@ietf.org; public-webrtc@w3.org
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling


I like your proposed idea as it is going in the direction of having "standard" signaling protocol for RTCWeb. I'm seeing your proposal as SDP offer/answer over websocket and the proposal helps to easy gateway development between RTCWeb server and legacy signaling protocols.

I have fundamental question in the proposal as it proposes RTCWeb server as SIP proxy equivalent and in reality, unfortunately most of the SIP deployment work is based on B2BUA. The question is whether RTCWeb server shall be dialog-state or MUST be transaction-stateful only. 

Also, session-id in the draft is used to uniquely understand the offerer and answerer in the transaction or session. In case it is session, how to indicate the termination of the session.

Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 14:30:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:22 UTC