Re: [rtcweb] RTCweb signalling overview

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <> Fri, 09 September 2011 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83EE921F8591 for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.834
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.834 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.414, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JqtcfZcDFucr for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98A9021F858D for <>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id p89D8fCA002356 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:08:52 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:08:48 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>, "" <>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 15:08:46 +0200
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] RTCweb signalling overview
Thread-Index: AcxuwbOFVUfX7jiRRHeJtJuTZ9HjpQALqydQ
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE220BA3C91FRMRSSXCHMBSC3d_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCweb signalling overview
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, 09 Sep 2011 13:07:02 -0000

With respect to question 3 in this set.

As I said on the call, the requirements for what needs to be standardised between the two web servers depends on whether web server A needs to know anything about user B, and whether web server B needs to know anything about user A. I believe this goes beyond SDP, because it may need to be information beyond the media contents, e.g. it may need to include information about each user's capabilities and preferences.

I actually have two slightly inconsistent views about this interface.

Yes it does need to be standardised. I don't like the idea of fragmentation being forced on the market because an appropriate standardised solution has not been identified.

No RTCWEB should not standardise it because it is out of scope of RTCWEB.

Surely this is also the interface by which support of interworking with legacy systems has to be attained?

Perhaps the easiest way out is to identify that full blow SIP is a solution for this specific interface, and RTCWEB identifies to SIPCORE as to whether there are any additional requirements that SIP cannot meet.



From: [] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: 09 September 2011 08:26
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCweb signalling overview

On 09/08/11 20:48, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
For those of you that did not participate in today's meeting, there was an excellent overview presented by Martin Kaufman.

It gives you an overview over the issues with signalling - to sip or not to sip - and other issues. Do read it.

Use the file rtcweb-3.pptx<> in

I liked the presentation even though I don't agree with the conclusions (I prefer Cullen's set).



rtcweb mailing list<>