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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Fri, 07 October 2011 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74EB821F8AD3 for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.333
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.256, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3HusW6tvSqts for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1F621F891D for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so3726381vws.31 for <>; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 03:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id e2mr1933594vdj.52.1317984568867; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 03:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:49:28 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 10:46:16 -0000

2011/10/7 Ravindran Parthasarathi <>:
> 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