Re: [rtcweb] Summary of draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protocol-00 (Open In-The-Wire Protocol for RTC-Web)

Saul Ibarra Corretge <saul@ag-projects.com> Thu, 03 November 2011 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <saul@ag-projects.com>
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 F205111E809D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611]
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 HrkiPH83iyKX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node06.dns-hosting.info [85.17.186.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F1A11E8099 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix, from userid 5001) id 68ECDB01B1; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:27:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.88.47] (unknown [200.76.96.109]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97522B017D; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:27:09 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Saul Ibarra Corretge <saul@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EB14599.5000509@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 17:27:08 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E75D5C38-F2CA-4BE3-9A6C-22FF81877A7A@ag-projects.com>
References: <CALiegfmvWWMf6dSikgfZqnSPuN-6UZKwAMfKu9HP2uqJxHMVCQ@mail.gmail.com> <4EB14599.5000509@ericsson.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protocol-00 (Open In-The-Wire Protocol for RTC-Web)
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: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:27:14 -0000

On Nov 2, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> WG,
> 
> I have gone over the discussion in this thread and the "Does ROAP
> mandate the on-the-wire format?" thread.
> 
> From the postings in these threads I think my summary of this would be:
> 
> There was strong agreement on the need for freedom in the used signaling
> protocol and its transport between the web-app and the servers and other
> web-app instances. This can be proprietary or a standardized protocol
> and is only up to the application what suits its needs.
> 
> It is also not required to send ROAP messages end-to-end although that
> is intended to be possible.
> 
> As a WG chair, I don't see any need to adopt
> draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protocol-00 as a WG document. I think the
> first agreements can most easily be documented in Overview document.
> 

+1.

> Does the WG participants think it is necessary to include this in the
> use case and requirements document?
> 

I think it would be good, given all the confusion that some terms created at some point.


Cheers,

-- 
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects