From: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Current state of signaling discussion
Thread-Index: AQHMjZq01pQrrm9gDkqkt90EPmbj/A==
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:34:48 +0000
Message-ID: <753A5B5E-45A7-46F0-98F9-B4503F4A0EF2@acmepacket.com>
References: <4E9D773A.4010705@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E9D773A.4010705@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <E49CA312FF035742AE3FA32C31272938@acmepacket.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Current state of signaling discussion
Precedence: list

On Oct 18, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> We also have a third proposal that want to be included in the
> considerations:
> c) RTCWEB does not define any signaling behavior at all, instead W3C is
> tasked to develop an API that allows the application to establish the
> media session between peers.
>=20
> I have as WG chair requested that the proponents for C to produce a
> Internet draft that provides requirements on the API and its capability.
> This is to ensure that this proposal can be properly evaluated. So far
> no such contribution has occurred. Without a willingness from the
> proponents of this style of solution to contribute and evolve their
> thinking in such way that the other WG members can gain a better
> understanding of the implications of this solution I find it difficult
> for us include it in the up coming consensus call.

That was not my understanding of what you (the WG Chairs) were asking for. =
 The email from Ted asking for drafts was this:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg01761.html

My reading of that is it was asking for a concrete solution in the signalin=
g solutions discussion.  For those of us who feel there needs to be *no* st=
andard-defined signaling, it was asking us for the empty set.  We delivered=
.  :)

Now it sounds like you're asking for something different: requirements for =
the (W3C-defined) API.  I had assumed that's what draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cas=
es-and-requirements was supposed to cover. No?

-hadriel