Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 17 October 2011 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C58DA21F8CB8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.584
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.584 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YRqSs3kcGIlq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:51:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22BFE21F8CAB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so3230254vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.184.103 with SMTP id et7mr20854387vdc.35.1318866667280; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5115992E@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
References: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E8AC222.4050308@alvestrand.no> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14CE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegf=ejF2kUC1m=74o9eprF1M8wYtgE-Crwa1x14rzDOf+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14FD@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <393F1888-F834-4DAE-B6B1-1C5D35EE3292@phonefromhere.com> <CAOg=WDcC9t2KhQUg0gDJ60gO_2mNyMv9HKt=otCdPDfj4TnoTg@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F152B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CABRok6mM7TfbLgGhoQvdRh1Kwoi5BhRweLcqWg7VZOFnaa8VOw@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1532@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CABRok6n33QK0Si1Y0kT7+U0zgAWsJ4d5GENK_KL-JPx5a4erYg@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF511598EE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <665A16AB-AAD8-42B3-AC17-7E629EA2DE35@phonefromhere.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5115992E@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:51:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmrncjsLVSiWk0tEgzwB00YaBGiqj0SDf9JTm9p1ZNoVA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:51:08 -0000

2011/10/17 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>;:

Again the same...

Ravindran, you are repeating the *same* arguments in different
mails/threads. You always *ignore* and don't reply to responses given
to your arguments. You are also manipulating some given responses by
making them to look as if their content agree with your insistent
proposal.

You are trying to manipulate this WG and that is dishonest. STOP please.

Unfortunatelly for you, your mails will always receive the deserved response:



> <partha> I’m not favor Inaki solution of SIP over websocket because it is
> overkill for signaling protocol.

Demonstrate it !!!

I know that SIP over websocket is NOT an overkill (because I *use*
it). You DONT KNOW the opposite. You CANNOT assert the opposite.
Stop lying please!


> Websocket solves routing issues between
> browser-webserver- browser, so the lightweight protocol over websocket will
> be sufficient and there is no need of complicated SIP based Javascript
> stack.

Use whatever you want but don't force me to use what you want. Neither
insist on creating a "default signaling protocol" for the reaons given
1000 times in this maillist (those reasons you ignore again and again
and you will NEVER reply to).


> Also, I’m not believer of the downloading complete signaling protocol script
> because it will delay the setup time which is crucial in lot of real-time
> application. Of course, it may not be critical for free application but not
> for professional services.

So you don't understand how the WWW works. The user visits a web page,
the browser downloads all the HTML, CSS, images and JavaScript stuff
and, *after that*, the web application is ready to be used. It does
not depend just on having a signaling protocol built-in the browser.

Now the problem is downloading a ~150KB JavaScript file??? There are
images taking more space in lot of webs!


> AFAIK, signaling protocol codebase expands very quickly with the addition of
> new services and leads to more delay in the setup of the session.  </partha>

And how is supposed your proposed "default signaling protocol" to
handle those "new services"? If you try NOW to make a "default
signaling protocol" for RTCweb that means that you MUST know *NOW* all
the possible requirements of any RTCweb future communication. You
don't know them, I don't know them, nobody knows them!




-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>;