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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Fri, 07 October 2011 06:09 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.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 D2D0621F85F2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 23:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.346
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.346 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 qWCqn5d3420V for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 23:09:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACBB421F8558 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 23:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail05.sonusnet.com (sonusmail05.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.155]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p976DOBL007870; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 02:13:24 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail05.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 02:05:56 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:35:53 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14FD@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegf=ejF2kUC1m=74o9eprF1M8wYtgE-Crwa1x14rzDOf+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AcyEk1tYliVhCpEoRA+pJSdigoRQKQAIPeyA
References: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E8AC222.4050308@alvestrand.no><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14CE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegf=ejF2kUC1m=74o9eprF1M8wYtgE-Crwa1x14rzDOf+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?ScOxYWtpIEJheiBDYXN0aWxsbw==?= <ibc@aliax.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2011 06:05:56.0962 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DD38420:01CC84B7]
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: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 06:09:44 -0000

Inaki,

I understand that you don't want any signaling protocol for RTCWeb  to be standardized. I'm strong believer of "something is better than nothing". Also, My standard signaling protocol proposal is never a hindrance to your innovative custom-build signaling protocol (SIP over websocket) development and the standard signaling protocol is not meant for you in case you are building custom-build signaling protocol. 

From the RTCweb client programmer perspective, there will be an set of API for building custom build signaling and another top level API which is based on proposed standard signaling. I could not understand why are you so against the standardization of the signaling protocol. 

Thanks
Partha  

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:ibc@aliax.net]
>Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 7:19 AM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Harald Alvestrand; rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
>protocol
>
>2011/10/5 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>;:
>> Sec 3 & 4 of the draft deals with the need and advantages for standard
>> signaling protocol.
>
>No
>
>
>>I understand your major concern is time.
>
>No, it's the proposal itself. Just you want it.
>
>
>> I think through
>> and provided some solution as part of the draft
>
>The solution is forgetting your wrong idea and stop ignoring replyins
>and rationale given to your *insistent* proposal.
>
>
>
>> 1)      Sec 5:  (RTCWeb Protocol requirement and design consideration)
>is
>> added to come up with the thump rules for standard signaling rather
>than
>> discussion different protocol
>
>And it's wrong (I will not repeat the arguments again).
>
>
>> 2)      Sec 6:  The list of existing signaling protocol is shown for
>> eliminating the signaling protocol based on Sec 5 conclusion
>
>Yes, let's use MEGACO, or H323, or ISUP.
>
>
>> In case time factor to solve this issue is the reason for rejecting
>this
>> proposal , let us work for the better way to reduce the timeframe to
>achieve
>> the result.
>
>That's not the point.
>
>
>--
>Iñaki Baz Castillo
><ibc@aliax.net>;