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

<> Fri, 07 October 2011 10:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4C521F8B59 for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 55yW4ZzY0gh9 for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6081621F8B2E for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p97B26GX019090; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:02:22 +0300
Received: from ([]) by over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:02:19 +0300
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:02:18 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.002; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 13:02:18 +0200
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 11:02:17 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <><><><><><><><> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
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
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:59:12 -0000


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.


>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Iñaki Baz Castillo []
>>Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 4:19 PM
>>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>>Cc: samuel; Tim Panton;
>>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
>>2011/10/7 Ravindran Parthasarathi <>:
>>> Your argument is "Time to market" RTCWeb compliance and few folks
>>> 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
>>> 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
>rtcweb mailing list