[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

RTCWEB                                                      J. Rosenberg
Internet-Draft                                                M. Kaufman
Intended status: Informational                                   M. Hiie
Expires: August 12, 2011                                        F. Audet
                                                                   Skype
                                                        February 8, 2011


 An Architectural Framework for Browser based Real-Time Communications
                                 (RTC)
                  draft-rosenberg-rtcweb-framework-00

Abstract

   This document defines an architectural framework for browser-based
   real-time communications (RTC).  We propose a media component model,
   where the browser provides an API abstraction which models media
   components and connections.  The underlying protocols within the
   browser provide for a minimum set of functionality related to
   transport of media.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 12, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect



Rosenberg, et al.        Expires August 12, 2011                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                  RTCWEB-fw                  February 2011


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  The Media Component Model  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  The Role of Signaling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  The Role of Media Transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  Benefits of the Media Component Model  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Enabling Innovation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.2.  The Importance of Flexibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Interoperability with Existing VoIP Gear . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

































Rosenberg, et al.        Expires August 12, 2011                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                  RTCWEB-fw                  February 2011


1.  Introduction

   Real-time communications (RTC) remains one of the few - if only -
   classes of desktop applications that is not yet possible using the
   native capabilities of the web browser.  These applications run
   natively on the desktop, or are powered by plugins.  The
   functionality provided by these desktop clients is rich and complex -
   ranging from user interface, to real-time notifications, to call
   signaling and call processing, to instant messaging and presence, and
   of course - the real-time media stack itself, including codecs,
   transport, firewall and NAT traversal, security, and so on.

   Given the breadth of functionality in today's desktop RTC clients,
   careful consideration needs to be paid to how that functionality
   manifests in the browser.  What functionality lives within the
   browser itself?  What functionality lives on top of it - either in
   client-side Javascript or within servers?  What protocols are spoken
   by the browser itself?  What protocols can be implemented within the
   Javascript?  What protocols need to be standardized, and which do
   not?  Pictorially, the question is what protocols, APIs, and
   functionality reside within the box marked "Browser RTC Function" in
   Figure 1.  Indeed, the central question is what functionality resides
   in that box, as the functionality will ultimately dictate the
   protocols that interface to it, and the APIs which control it.



























Rosenberg, et al.        Expires August 12, 2011                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                  RTCWEB-fw                  February 2011


                        +------------------------+  On-the-wire
                        |                        |  Protocols
                        |      Servers           |--------->
                        |                        |
                        |                        |
                        +------------------------+
                                    ^
                                    |
                                    |
                                    | HTTP/
                                    | Websockets
                                    |
                                    |
                                    |
                                    |
                      +----------------------------+
                      |    Javascript/HTML/CSS     |
                      +----------------------------+
                   Other  ^                 ^RTC
                   APIs   |                 |APIs
                      +---|-----------------|------+
                      |   |                 |      |
                      |                 +---------+|
                      |                 | Browser ||  On-the-wire
                      | Browser         | RTC     ||  Protocols
                      |                 | Function|----------->
                      |                 |         ||
                      |                 |         ||
                      |                 +---------+|
                      +---------------------|------+
                                            |
                                            V
                                       Native OS Services








                          Figure 1: Browser Model


2.  The Media Component Model

   It is our position that the functionality that manifests within the
   box be a media component model.  In this model, the browser



Rosenberg, et al.        Expires August 12, 2011                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                  RTCWEB-fw                  February 2011


   implements the necessary functionality to perform the real-time
   processing of media, starting from capture/render, through
   encapsulation in real-time transport protocols sent over the
   Internet.  This functionality must be built into the browser, rather
   than within Javascript, due to its tight timing requirements and
   complexity.  Furthermore, the functionality manifest as a set of
   loosely coupled components, each of which performs some aspect of the
   real-time processing.  Each component has APIs which allow that
   component to be configured (with sensible defaults where
   appropriate), along with APIs that allow applications to gather
   information and statistics about the performance of that module.

   The modules would include the codec itself, the acoustic echo
   canceller (AEC), the jitter buffer, audio and video pre-processing
   modules, and network transport components (including encryption and
   integrity protection of media) which speak specific transport
   protocols (such as the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)).  The
   media component model is purposefully minimalistic.  It opts for
   maximizing the functionality that lives outside of the browser itself
   - within Javascript or servers.  In particular, only functionality
   which is real-time - which cannot be done using Javascript or server
   functionality - resides within the browser itself.  As explained in
   Section 5, this facilitates innovation, differentiation, and
   development velocity - all of the key characteristics that have made
   the web what it is.

   As an example, a codec component implementing Opus
   [I-D.ietf-codec-opus] might be represented by a Javascript object
   with properties that mirror the configuration settings of the codec
   itself - the sample rate (one of narrowband, mediumband, wideband or
   super-wideband), the packet rate (number of frames per packet), the
   bitrate (which can vary between 6 and 40kbps), a slider that adjusts
   the packet loss resilience, a Boolean which indicates whether inband
   FEC should be used, and another Boolean which indicates whether to
   apply silence suppression.  Of course, all of these parameters might
   have reasonable defaults so that non-expert programmers can just make
   it work.  However, an advanced programmer could force a mode or
   change a setting as needed.  After all, the Opus codec itself makes
   these parameters tunable exactly because there is no one right value;
   the correct setting depends on the application scenario and needs of
   the developer.


3.  The Role of Signaling

   It is our view that signaling is accomplished using a combination of
   existing client-server web protocols (HTTP, COMET, and websockets)
   and standards-based server-to-server protocols, such as SIP.  A view



Rosenberg, et al.        Expires August 12, 2011                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                  RTCWEB-fw                  February 2011


   of the "browser RTC Trapezoid" is shown in Figure 2.




                +-----------+             +-----------+
                |   Web/    |             |   Web/    |
                |   SIP     |     SIP     |   SIP     |
                |           |-------------|           |
                |  Server   |             |  Server   |
                |           |             |           |
                +-----------+             +-----------+
                     /                           \
                    /                             \   Proprietary over
                   /                               \  HTTP/Websockets
                  /                                 \
                 /  Proprietary over                 \
                /   HTTP/Websockets                   \
               /                                       \
         +-----------+                           +-----------+
         |JS/HTML/CSS|                           |JS/HTML/CSS|
         +-----------+                           +-----------+
         +-----------+                           +-----------+
         |           |                           |           |
         |           |                           |           |
         |  Browser  | ------------------------- |  Browser  |
         |           |          Media            |           |
         |           |                           |           |
         +-----------+                           +-----------+

                      Figure 2: Browser RTC Trapezoid

   In this example, a call is placed between two different providers.
   They use a SIP-based interface to federate between them.  However,
   each of their respective browser-based clients signals to its server
   using proprietary application protocols built ontop of HTTP and
   Websockets.  For example, provider A might offer simple calling
   services, and have a very simple web services interface for placing
   calls:


http://calling.providerA.com/call?target=joe@providerB.com&myIP=1.2.3.4:4476

   Which takes only the called party and local IP/port as arguments.
   Provider A's server infrastructure - some combination of web and SIP
   servers built in any way it likes - uses the identity of the target,
   along with previously-known information on the capabilities of the
   caller's browser learned through a web-services registration, to



Rosenberg, et al.        Expires August 12, 2011                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                  RTCWEB-fw                  February 2011


   generate a SIP INVITE.  This arrives at provider B's server
   infrastructure, which alerts its browser-based client of the incoming
   call.  Provider B might be an enterprise service provider, and offer
   much richer features and signaling.  Provider B uses a websocket
   interface to the browser, providing it the identity of the caller,
   the list of available codecs, and so on.  B's service provider offers
   web-services based APIs for answering the call, declining it, sending
   to voicemail, redirecting to another number, parking it, and so on.

   APIs within the browser allow each side to instruct the browsers to
   send media, including selection of media types and codecs.  In this
   model, there is no SIP in the browser.  It is our view that SIP has
   no place within the browser.

   SIP is an application protocol - providing call setup, registration,
   codec negotiation, chat and presence, amongst other features.  For
   each and every new feature that is desired to run between a SIP
   client and a SIP server, a new standard must be defined and then
   implemented.  The feature set is indeed vast, considering the wealth
   of potential endpoints, ranging from simple consumer "voice only"
   clients, to richer videophones, to voice and video multiparty
   conferencing (including content sharing), to low-end enterprise
   phones, to high end executive admin phones, to contact centers
   endpoints, and beyond.  Each of those requires more and more SIP
   extensions in order to function.  This has resulted in a growing
   number of specifications, with diminishing returns of
   interoperability and feature velocity.  As an example, the BLISS
   working group in IETF was formed to tackle some basic business phone
   features - including line sharing, park, call queuing, and automated
   call handling.  Each of these individual features requires one or
   more specifications, and needs to be designed to meet the needs of
   all of the participants in the process.

   There are two important consequences of this.  First, the requirement
   of standardization acts as a huge deterrent to innovation.  Indeed,
   in many ways, it is anathema to the very notion of how the web is
   supposed to work.  In the web model, the provider can define
   arbitrary content to render to users, craft arbitrary UI, and define
   arbitrary messaging from the browser back to the server, all without
   standardization or change to the web browser.  Google does not need
   to wait for the browsers to implement IMAP in order to provide mail
   service.  Facebook does not need the browser to have XMPP or SIP to
   enable presence and instant messaging.  Why is call processing any
   different?  Why should Skype or any other real-time communications
   provider be constrained by standardized application protocols?  Each
   provider should be able to design and innovate what it needs, and not
   be constrained by the functionalities of the application protocols
   burned into the browser.



Rosenberg, et al.        Expires August 12, 2011                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                  RTCWEB-fw                  February 2011


   While it is true that standardization will be required in order to
   extend these features between domains, that standardization process
   can be the successor - not the predecessor - to successsful
   deployment and usage of the feature within a domain.  Furthermore,
   many features and services do not need to be extended between
   domains.  Many of the BLISS features are good examples of this.

   Inclusion of SIP in the browser for client to server signaling will
   also harm interoperability.  Unfortunately, SIP interoperability
   betweend endpoints and servers has been relatively poor; working only
   for basic call setup, teardown, and basic features.  Important
   concepts like configuration remain poorly standardized and almost
   never interoperate.  The web has certainly had interoperability
   problems, but the nature of those problems is different.  In the web,
   content providers often need to code differently for different
   browsers, but at least they can deliver their application
   functionality.  On the other hand, with SIP phones, many cases
   features simply do not and cannot work, and this cannot be resolved
   through software development on behalf of the SIP provider.
   Interoperability is improved when there are fewer standards and not
   more.  Instead of adding SIP and its extensions to the browser,
   application providers can use the tools that are already there - HTTP
   and websockets, and then define whatever signaling functions they
   desire ontop, without interoperability consequences.

   Make no mistake - SIP remains important as a glue between service
   providers, and between server infrastructure within service provider
   networks.  However, in a web context, there is simply no need for SIP
   support in the browser.


4.  The Role of Media Transport

   Unlike signaling, media transport does need to be in the browser, for
   two important reasons:

   1.  It operates in real-time and does not fit well with the
       programming model of Javascript

   2.  It needs to flow between endpoints directly - over UDP - in order
       to achieve low latency, and therefore requires standardization in
       order to interoperate with other providers or endpoints

   The second point is important.  Unlike most other web protocols,
   real-time media needs to be sent from the browser client to
   recipients other than the origin server or domain from which the web
   content came from.  This is essential for ensuring low latency
   operations - one of the key metrics of quality in Voice over IP



Rosenberg, et al.        Expires August 12, 2011                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                  RTCWEB-fw                  February 2011


   systems.  In some cases, the recipient will be another browser
   endpoint from the same provider.  However, it could be a desktop
   client or mobile client from the same provider, or as shown in
   Figure 2, it could be a browser endpoint or desktop endpoint from
   another service provider.  In all cases, a direct connection - indeed
   a direct UDP connection - is important whenever possible.

   From a security perspective however, the browser cannot just have an
   API that tells it to send arbitrary UDP datagrams or even
   standardized-format voice (or worse - video) media packets to an
   arbitary IP address.  The former introduces the opportunity for
   malicious JavaScript to craft packets that mimick other application
   protocols and send them to arbitrary endpoints (for example, an
   enterprise SNMP server).  The latter would introduce a substantial
   opportunity for denial-of-service attacks.  Malicious Javascript
   could tell the browser to "spam" an unwitting recipient with high
   bandwidth video.  In the voice literature, this is referred to as the
   voice hammer attack [RFC5245].  In existing voice systems, this
   attack is possible but not likely due to the closed nature of most of
   the software and systems.  In a web environment, where all it takes
   is one line of malicious Javascript, the attack becomes almost a
   certainty.

   To avoid this attack, a simple handshake can be utilized.  The
   browser should support a simple STUN-based [RFC5389] connection
   handshake.  The exchange of the STUN transaction ID prior to
   transmission of media prevents the attack.


5.  Benefits of the Media Component Model

   There are several important benefits of the media component model
   proposed here.

5.1.  Enabling Innovation

   One of the reasons why the Web has been successful as a user
   interface platform is the short turn-around time to deploy new
   versions of web-based services.  Often, these new versions are
   experiments that vary small details which are important to make the
   service successful.  It is the fine granularity of user interface
   elements in HTML and related technologies that allow this
   experimentation with details.  As there is no agreed-upon
   configuration of real-time audio/video communication technologies
   that always delivers the best result, we think that it is essential
   to give the application developers the same benefit of short turn-
   around time and ability to experiment with details.  Therefore, the
   real-time communication primitives offered by user agents to web



Rosenberg, et al.        Expires August 12, 2011                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                  RTCWEB-fw                  February 2011


   applications/services should be fine-grained enough to allow for
   enhanced configurations and possibly new scenarios.  Also, these
   interfaces to the primitives should allow gathering real-world data
   in enough detail on how the primitives are operating, to enable the
   feedback loop of deploy-measure-reconfigure-redeploy.

   One of the areas where perhaps the most innovation can be expected is
   signaling - one only needs to look at the plethora of standards
   around SIP.  Proposing user-agent vendors to implement all these
   standards is a sure way to make the common denominator across user
   agents marginal.  Instead, the browser already has a programmability
   model (JavaScript) that can handle all these use cases, and more,
   provided the programming environment has access to the underlying
   media components as we propose here.  Drawing again parallels from
   user interface development, there is an undecided problem of what
   should be executed by the user agent, and what by the web servers
   (e.g. validation).  Similar gray boundary between the client and the
   server exists in the field of real-time communications.  Therefore we
   propose to leave standardization of signaling out of scope for this
   activity, and let the web service providers define signaling as they
   see fit.

5.2.  The Importance of Flexibility

   There are obviously tradeoffs between built-in functionality and
   programmability.  It is often tempting to provide the web page author
   with a simple and relatively inflexible way of expressing their
   intent so as to minimize the page author's effort and accelerate
   adoption.  As an example, the "<blink>" tag was adopted much more
   rapidly than it would have been if blinking text could have only been
   implemented by writing a JavaScript timer task to manipulate the DOM
   style objects.

   On the other hand, such built-in functionality comes at two important
   costs.  First, each browser implementation must implement the
   functionality, and the more which is moved from JavaScript to
   built-in functionality the more code must be present for that
   implemention.  Second, and more important, the page author is now
   restricted to the subset of functionality which is provided by these
   browser implementations.

   The "<video>" tag as it currently stands is an excellent example.
   While it does make it possible for a page author to embed video
   playback within a page without relying on external plug-ins (and
   without knowing much more than the URL of the video they wish to
   play), it also leaves the implementation of advanced functionality -
   such as adaptive multi-bitrate streaming - in the hands of the
   browser developer, not the page author.  Unless all vendors agree on



Rosenberg, et al.        Expires August 12, 2011               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                  RTCWEB-fw                  February 2011


   a standard for transmission of such videos (including things like the
   file format for manifest information), this advanced functionality
   will be not available across the browser landscape.  Most
   importantly, the logic - the actual decisions about when to switch
   rates and why - becomes buried deep inside the browser, hard or
   potentially impossible to adjust for various circumstances.

   An alternative approach for adaptive multi-bitrate video streaming
   was recently adopted by the Flash Player.  The video object simply
   has an API for receiving bits to be played back.  The script engine
   (and thus the script author, usually through the use of a pre-
   existing library) becomes responsible for determining which bits to
   download and which bits to pass to the video object.  This enables
   adaptive multi-bitrate HTTP streaming video, but it also enables any
   number of other uses, many of which were not even contemplated by the
   providers of that API.  It also means that upgrades to this logic
   come in the form of new script libraries, and not in the form of an
   upgrade to the Flash Player itself.

   We advocate a similar approach here whenever it is possible.  With
   the exception of the passing of real-time data to and from the media
   components (which we believe must communicate directly in order to
   meet real-time latency constraints) we advocate placing all of the
   logic outside of the browser itself and instead into the hands of the
   page author through JavaScript APIs.  These APIs may be more complex
   to use for some cases, but they minimize the implementation effort on
   the part of the browser vendor and can provide functionality that has
   not yet been contemplated.

   An example of this might be the peer-to-peer NAT traversal problem.
   Rather than having an API for "browser, please use ICE [RFC5245] to
   open a connection to another peer" we would instead have APIs like
   "browser, please send an ICE-compatible STUN [RFC5389] probe to the
   following candidate address".  This allows the actual logic, the
   sequencing, the choice of what to implement at the client and what to
   offload to the server, to be in the hands of the JavaScript
   developer.  We expect that libraries to implement common
   functionality (such as ICE, which could be built ontop of this) will
   become readily and freely available, and so in short order the extra
   work required for a page author to work with these lower level APIs
   becomes insignificant.


6.  Interoperability with Existing VoIP Gear

   In order for Browser-based Real-Time Communication to be successful,
   it is essential to ensure a good level of interoperability with
   existing VoIP gear.  This means that a strong baseline for



Rosenberg, et al.        Expires August 12, 2011               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                  RTCWEB-fw                  February 2011


   interoperability of end-to-end media needs to be defined.

   The amount of VoIP gear currently deployed is very substantial for
   both VoIP Service Providers and Enterprise IP Telephony.  In both
   cases, media is transported on RTP/RTCP [RFC3550] using codecs such
   as G.711 and G.729.  Signaling for call control uses SIP [RFC3261],
   H.323, H.248/Megaco, and a wide range of proprietary protocols.
   Inter-domain, the signaling protocol is mostly SIP.

   Interoperability at the signaling level can be handled by gateways,
   and is outside the scope of this paper.  Media interoperability
   however needs to be addressed.  It is not acceptable to rely on
   servers to convert media from one transport (and codec) to another
   because it introduces significant challenges.  First, it requires a
   large number of servers to do the actual transcoding, which increases
   cost.  Second, it affects the routing of media by adding an
   additional leg to the transport, which increases end-to-end delay,
   and therefore decreases voice quality.  If there is codec
   translation, it decreases voice quality even further.  And finally,
   it can potentially complicate end-to-end security.

   Interoperability means working with reality, and not just standards.
   As such, it is important that browsers support basic RTP transport
   for voice and support the G.711 codec.  Furthermore, they should
   interoperate with network-based session border controllers, which are
   the most commonly deployed technique for NAT traversal in existing
   networks.  They should also support security, based on SRTP
   [RFC3711].


7.  Informative References

   [RFC5389]  Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
              "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
              October 2008.

   [I-D.ietf-codec-opus]
              Valin, J. and K. Vos, "Definition of the Opus Audio
              Codec", draft-ietf-codec-opus-02 (work in progress),
              February 2011.

   [RFC5245]  Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
              (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
              Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
              April 2010.

   [RFC3550]  Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V.
              Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time



Rosenberg, et al.        Expires August 12, 2011               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                  RTCWEB-fw                  February 2011


              Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3711]  Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
              Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
              RFC 3711, March 2004.


Authors' Addresses

   Jonathan Rosenberg
   Skype
   Monmouth, NJ
   US

   Email: jdrosen@skype.net
   URI:   http://www.jdrosen.net


   Matthew Kaufman
   Skype
   Palo Alto, CA
   US

   Email: matthew.kaufman@skype.net


   Magnus Hiie
   Skype
   Palo Alto, CA
   US

   Email: magnus.hiie@skype.net


   Francois Audet
   Skype
   Palo Alto, CA
   US

   Email: francois.audet@skype.net






Rosenberg, et al.        Expires August 12, 2011               [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/