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

<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Fri, 07 October 2011 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.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 2E4C521F8B59 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6]
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 55yW4ZzY0gh9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-sa01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6081621F8B2E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh104.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.30]) by mgw-sa01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p97B26GX019090; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:02:22 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:02:19 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-001.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.56) by NOK-AM1MHUB-04.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:02:18 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.167]) by 008-AM1MMR1-001.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.56]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:02:18 +0200
From: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>
To: <pravindran@sonusnet.com>, <ibc@aliax.net>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AcyB2M8p5Sh3naz7SPaFx9XGCjJhjQAABSnAACFBTgAARpW+AABClSQAAAj02IAACQDpgAAAPwgAAAAyXgAAAHUgAAAAExIAAARDZCA=
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:02:17 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620D68F5@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.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> <CALiegf=BubV4-uBeoK6vvNiug4ooYb-mP8U3rGVCLa1fwJWFtg@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F152D@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F152D@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.21.75.16]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2011 11:02:19.0329 (UTC) FILETIME=[94F16310:01CC84E0]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
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 10:59:12 -0000

Hi,

Ravindran Parthasarathi
>
>Let us debate on the RTCWeb signaling meeting
>

I'd rather hope we could stop spending cycles on this particular debate. My read on the list is that there is pretty strong concensus on that we will *not* pick and standardize a single complete "signaling protocol" (such as SIP or XMPP/Jingle) for RTC-Web. This is of course up to the chairs to determine.

Markus

>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:ibc@aliax.net]
>>Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 4:19 PM
>>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>>Cc: samuel; Tim Panton; rtcweb@ietf.org
>>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
>>protocol
>>
>>2011/10/7 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>;:
>>> Your argument is "Time to market" RTCWeb compliance and few folks
>>already
>>> mentioned about it and also proposing to develop the new protocol.
>>
>>And *lot* of folks already mentioned that your proposal is bad for
>>WebRTC, but you don't say that. You still continue ignoring arguments
>>and persons you cannot reply. Tim's argument is not just about "Time to
>>market". Anyone reading his mail would also read the third paragraph
>>(which you intentionally ignore now, of course, as you always do).
>>
>>
>>
>>> At this moment, I don't think that there is a need for developing new
>>> signaling protocol for RTCweb. IMO, The argument may be which is best
>>> suitable rather than none of the protocol is suitable.
>>
>>Please, don't try to distract this WG for achieving your goals. There
>>is not, and there will not be, a discussion/debate about which one is
>>the "best default and *mandatory* signaling protocol".
>>
>>
>>
>>> In case your proposal is not to invent new protocol for RTCWeb
>>signaling.
>>> Please look at my draft which is in the same line.
>>
>>Sure, your draft is just any of your mails copy&pasted into a draft.
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Iñaki Baz Castillo
>><ibc@aliax.net>;
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb