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

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <> Tue, 18 October 2011 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13BE11F0C6E for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.688
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hjL-TGPT2+UE for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:01:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AE61F0C5D for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 5001) id 42728B01B5; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:01:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9A6D7B017D; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:01:41 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:01:41 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F3>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:01:59 -0000

On Oct 17, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:

> The point to be noted is folks put forth the same argument again & again..each time, it is not possible to come up new answer ;-) I noticed often you complain as if your important is missed out. We are arguing only about "nothing" vs "something" as a RTCWeb signaling protocol.
> I clearly explained why SIP over websocket is an overkill in the below mail thread. Please read it and don't argue that it is working. All the working stuff is not good. Infact for any protocol, the first idea pop-up is to tunnel the complete inside (For Ex: ISUP over SIP) but always better ways to solve it.

Let me connect the dots: you are advocating for a new 'simple' protocol instead of taking an existing one, SIP for example, which you called 'overkill'. And earlier in this thread you mentioned that you are interested in gateways.

I now understand what you are trying to do.

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects