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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <> Mon, 17 October 2011 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF121F0C4C for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:28:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.908
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Al+8JskyIn8 for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B40F1F0C43 for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9HMStnd030335; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:28:55 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:28:21 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 03:58:03 +0530
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
Thread-Index: AcyK59gjnHrw6AUkQx6KmrMgad4vKACMb4Ng
References: <>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
To: Cullen Jennings <>,,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2011 22:28:21.0388 (UTC) FILETIME=[1392A4C0:01CC8D1C]
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:28:24 -0000


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.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On
>Of Cullen Jennings
>Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 8:39 AM
>Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg
>Subject: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
>Jonathan and I submitted a new draft on setting up media based on the
>SDP Offer/Answer model. The ASCII flows are a bit hard to read so until
>I update them, I recommend reading the PDF version at
>Clearly the draft is an early stage but we plan to revise it before the
>deadline for the IETF 82. Love to get input - particularly on if this
>looks like generally the right direction to go.
>rtcweb mailing list