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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Fri, 07 October 2011 12:27 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 C7E1F21F8B06 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 05:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, 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 zurXfIUUD2K4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 05:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 357E821F8B05 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 05:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so3802306vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 05:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.120.12 with SMTP id b12mr558335vcr.111.1317990665301; Fri, 07 Oct 2011 05:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 05:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1532@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
References: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E8AC222.4050308@alvestrand.no> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14CE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegf=ejF2kUC1m=74o9eprF1M8wYtgE-Crwa1x14rzDOf+gQ@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14FD@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <393F1888-F834-4DAE-B6B1-1C5D35EE3292@phonefromhere.com> <CAOg=WDcC9t2KhQUg0gDJ60gO_2mNyMv9HKt=otCdPDfj4TnoTg@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F152B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CABRok6mM7TfbLgGhoQvdRh1Kwoi5BhRweLcqWg7VZOFnaa8VOw@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1532@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 14:31:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegf=E2M2F-LUEdNXP9O+Fab6tEi1jtu6+UACp6UXMBKFL2Q@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] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
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: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:27:52 -0000

2011/10/7 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>;:
> Browser to browser real time communication is no different from other
> real-time communication apart from the existing web infrastructure. In case
> your argument is to use the existing web infrastructure like websocket, I
> agree with you.
>
> But in case it is not the reason, Could you please list the reason for new
> signaling protocol requirement .

Ravindran, could you please read the entire mails? Neil crearly said
at the end of his mail:

"So I strongly support not picking a default and instead encourage
some innovation at the javascript level."


Do you read the "strongly" word?

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