Re: [rtcweb] Friday Agenda: Re: Friday Call details for signaling discussion

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-10-20 12:45, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2011/10/20 Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>:
>> The proposed agenda for Firday is as follows:
>>
>> 10 min introduction from each signaling proposal:
>> - draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling-00 (ROAP) Cullen
>> - draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00 (Standard signaling protocol) Partha
>> - ? (No Protocol) ?
>>
>> In the above only clarifying questions may occur.
>>
>> 20 min discussion of each proposal
>>
>> 30 min concluding discussion
>>
>> From my perspective both draft-beck-rtcweb-alt-ic-00 and
>> draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket-00 are relevant documents to the
>> discussion as they provides useful proposals on how interconnect and SIP
>> interop respectively can be done. But as they aren't proposals for how
>> the actual signaling solution should work. Thus these are homework but
>> don't get presentation time.
> 
> Hi Magnus. Honestly I don't consider that discussing about
> draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket-00 should take place. It's just a
> suggestion about a signaling protocol in RTCweb (in this case pure SIP
> over WebSocket). It's not my aim that the WG considers such spec as a
> standard signaling for RTCweb. Well, this is basically the same you
> have said :)

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I don't intended that we would have any
discussion either of your draft. Only that it is useful background
material for the discussion.

The below links seems useful to have read also before yesterdays conference.

Cheers

Magnus

> 
> In the other said, I'd really would like that, before the meeting, all
> the folks could take some time to read:
> 
>   http://public.aliax.net/RTCweb_Signaling_Components.html
> and
>   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg02158.html
> 
> This means not wasting time if somebody proposes ROAP as a "default
> signaling protocol" because ROAP is not that and cannot do that (more
> info in the given links). Also, given the general confusion when the
> term "signaling" appears in this WG, I've tryied to clarify its
> meaning(s) in RTCweb context (first link).
> 
> For those who advocate for a "default signaling protocol", I hope
> second link should make them to re-think about what such erroneous
> decision would entail in current and *existing* WWW world.
> 
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> 
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------