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

"Avasarala, Ranjit" <Ranjit.Avasarala@Polycom.com> Tue, 18 October 2011 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <Ranjit.Avasarala@Polycom.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 82FAE21F8C7E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 jOm9Qzc8aFiM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Hkgehubprd01.polycom.com (hkgehubprd01.polycom.com [140.242.6.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786D821F8B28 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:38:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hkgmboxprd22.polycom.com ([fe80::c4c3:4566:8b3b:ec85]) by Hkgehubprd01.polycom.com ([fe80::5efe:172.21.6.201%12]) with mapi; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:38:29 +0800
From: "Avasarala, Ranjit" <Ranjit.Avasarala@Polycom.com>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <saul@ag-projects.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:38:27 +0800
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AcyNY9RKUZtq4/TvTF2m8ihYBiTuMwACTO9QAAD+IPA=
Message-ID: <1F2A2C70609D9E41844A2126145FC09804004302@HKGMBOXPRD22.polycom.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> <CALiegfmrncjsLVSiWk0tEgzwB00YaBGiqj0SDf9JTm9p1ZNoVA@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F3 86A979B F51159950@so nusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <0950F0E1-6E4B-407F-9563-654AFE79F64B@ag-projects.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159994@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159994@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:38:32 -0000

That's the whole issue. We need some mechanism for web browsers to negotiate offer/answer and ICE candidates between each other. Using SIP for this over websockets would bring in unnecessary overheads. But we still need some mechanism. So something which is "simple" is needed.

Regards
Ranjit

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ravindran Parthasarathi
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:46 PM
To: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol

Saul,

One minor correction in your mail: I have mentioned "SIP over websocket" is an overkill and not SIP.

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé [mailto:saul@ag-projects.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:32 PM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Iñaki Baz Castillo; rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
>protocol
>
>
>On Oct 17, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>
>> The point to be noted is folks put forth the same argument again &
>again..each time, it is not possible to come up new answer ;-) I noticed
>often you complain as if your important is missed out. We are arguing
>only about "nothing" vs "something" as a RTCWeb signaling protocol.
>>
>> I clearly explained why SIP over websocket is an overkill in the below
>mail thread. Please read it and don't argue that it is working. All the
>working stuff is not good. Infact for any protocol, the first idea pop-
>up is to tunnel the complete inside (For Ex: ISUP over SIP) but always
>better ways to solve it.
>>
>
>Let me connect the dots: you are advocating for a new 'simple' protocol
>instead of taking an existing one, SIP for example, which you called
>'overkill'. And earlier in this thread you mentioned that you are
>interested in gateways.
>
>I now understand what you are trying to do.
>
>--
>Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
>AG Projects
>
>

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb