IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Fri, 16 September 2011 23:33 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
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 EE0EE21F8B78 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.350, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
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 4fFbEjPhI-nP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stewe.org (stewe.org [85.214.122.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C745C21F8B70 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.62] (unverified [71.202.147.60]) by stewe.org (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 38455-1743317 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Sep 2011 01:36:02 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.13.0.110805
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:35:53 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CA992A69.30F70%stewe@stewe.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAwnnKKO5+q6ey4Z0QNxax1QF21vVtw8FNsHy_rmfenjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3399035762_15862410"
X-Originating-IP: 71.202.147.60
X-Authenticated-User: stewe@stewe.org
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP (71.202.147.60) was found in the spamhaus database. http://www.spamhaus.net
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: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 23:33:51 -0000

Hi,

From:  Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date:  Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:43:34 -0700
To:  Jim McEachern <jim.mceachern@genband.com>
Cc:  "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject:  Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: About
defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]

[Š]
>   We have to make sure that it is relatively easy to adopt  rtcweb in
> javascript applications.  The way we've discussed that in the past was "2
> party video chat in 20 lines of javascript".
[Š]

I think that something along these lines ought to be added to the
requirements draft (perhaps in softened form, and perhaps not even as a
Requirement but rather in the intro section), and a discussion about issues
that libraries may have ought to be added to framework drafts.

Stephan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email