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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <> Tue, 18 October 2011 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9148221F89B8 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 04:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.749
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n44SW9uDG3Du for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 04:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C9721F899F for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 04:31:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9IBVxpj021010; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:32:00 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:31:25 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:01:22 +0530
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AcyNY9RKUZtq4/TvTF2m8ihYBiTuMwACTO9QAAD+IPAABhdKMA==
References: <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F3 8 6A979B F 51159950@so><> <> <>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
To: "Avasarala, Ranjit" <>, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2011 11:31:25.0742 (UTC) FILETIME=[786E1CE0:01CC8D89]
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 11:31:30 -0000

Agreed Ranjit.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Avasarala, Ranjit []
>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:08 PM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi; Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
>Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
>That's the whole issue. We need some mechanism for web browsers to
>negotiate offer/answer and ICE candidates between each other. Using SIP
>for this over websockets would bring in unnecessary overheads. But we
>still need some mechanism. So something which is "simple" is needed.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On Behalf
>Of Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:46 PM
>To: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
>One minor correction in your mail: I have mentioned "SIP over websocket"
>is an overkill and not SIP.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé []
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:32 PM
>>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>>Cc: Iñaki Baz Castillo;
>>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
>>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
>>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
>>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
>rtcweb mailing list