Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 03 October 2011 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5E9121F8E4E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.636
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f8fX2+JKVv1H for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:29:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA74521F8E46 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so4847513vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.68.97 with SMTP id v1mr334324vdt.313.1317673946830; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 13:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F137B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
References: <CALiegfnOCxyTo9ffQ272+ncdu5UdgrtDT-dn10BWGTZMEjZoCg@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C0A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <05CAC192-E462-421F-B1E5-B78DC8F60306@ag-projects.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C93@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <16880306-5B3A-4EFD-ADE4-1201138D9182@acmepacket.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F137B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 22:32:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfn6w=9Y2-7y7i1x_oEP3XHSRjDqAXZ5QWPhrHpT8rA8xA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:29:24 -0000

2011/10/3 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>;:
> I agree to the fact that SCCP protocol is decided by Cisco folks but it does not mean that every company in the world has to create their own version of SCCP protocol and IETF should not force every company to re-invent the wheel.

I agree, but that's not mean that a default signaling protocol
built-in the browser is required. Lot of people uses jQuery and nobody
asks for it to be included in browsers JS stack natively.

What you suggest can easily achieved with a JS library implementing
your so much desired default signaling protocol.



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>;