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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <> Wed, 05 October 2011 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A451D11E808E for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.494
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6IKoiqVQeShw for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E89D11E8083 for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p95I3tgf019445; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:03:55 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:03:22 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC8389.10553E17"
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 23:32:58 +0530
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AcyCbrTTtzCgiXjeQ22TtW1Iq/BXHwBGHX5g
References: <> <>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Oct 2011 18:03:22.0463 (UTC) FILETIME=[121E36F0:01CC8389]
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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:00:18 -0000

Hi Harald, 


Sec 3 & 4 of the draft deals with the need and advantages for standard
signaling protocol. I understand your major concern is time. I think
through and provided some solution as part of the draft


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

2)      Sec 6:  The list of existing signaling protocol is shown for
eliminating the signaling protocol based on Sec 5 conclusion


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. 





From: [] On Behalf
Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling



the core part of your document seems to me to be this list:

   The following Signaling protocols will qualify for becoming standard
   RTCWeb signaling protocol
   1.  Jingle
   2.  Websocket with SDP offer/answer
   3.  SIP
   4.  SIPLite [I-D.cbran-rtcweb-protocols
an-rtcweb-protocols> ]
   5.  Websocket with custom XML
   6.  Megaco [RFC5125 <> ]
   7.  Websocket with SIP [I-D.ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket
-rtcweb-sip-websocket> ]
   8.  HTTP with custom XML
   9.  ???
   TBD: Pros and cons for each of the signaling mechanism has to be

My reading of your document is that you want the RTCWEB working group to
pick exactly one of these alternatives, and insist that all conformant
implementations of RTCWEB support this protocol.

I disagree with:

a) that this is needed
b) that this is a good idea

The reasons why it is not a good idea have been raised multiple times,
and spending continued effort on trying to debate which of the
alternatives you list above is "the best one" is distracting to our
purpose of getting the RTCWEB protocol suite done.

I do not support pursuing your suggested direction of work in this
working group.


On 10/03/2011 04:41 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote: 

Hi all,
RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
( draft list
the need for standard signaling protocol between RTCWeb client (browser)
and RTCWeb server and the possible signaling protocol for the same. This
draft is written based on mail
thread discussion. Could you please provide your valuable comments.
-----Original Message-----
From: [] 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:56 PM
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
Cc: Ravindran Parthasarathi
Subject: New Version Notification for
A new version of I-D, draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00.txt has been
successfully submitted by Parthasarathi Ravindran and posted to the IETF
Filename:      draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling
Revision:      00
Title:         RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Creation date:  2011-10-03
WG ID:         Individual Submission
Number of pages: 8
   The standardization of Real time communication between browsers is to
   provide the infrastructure for audio, video, text communication using
   standard interface so that interoperable communication can be
   established between any compatible browsers.  RTCWeb specific
   Javascript API will be provided by browsers for developing real-time
   web application.  It is possible to develop signaling protocol like
   Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) or Jingle or websocket extension or
   custom-made signaling protocol in Javascript.  There are lots of
   issues in Javascript based signaling protocol.  This document list
   the need for standard signaling protocol between RTCWeb client
   (browser) and RTCWeb server and possible signaling protocol for the

The IETF Secretariat
rtcweb mailing list