Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling

"Roy, Radhika R USA CIV (US)" <> Tue, 18 October 2011 12:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DA6421F8B85 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.445
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.445 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LHfZzsd8HhGI for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8C421F8B7E for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:49:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:49:08 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:49:07 -0500
From: "Roy, Radhika R USA CIV (US)" <>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>, Cullen Jennings <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
Thread-Index: AcyK59gjnHrw6AUkQx6KmrMgad4vKACMb4NgAB6cXnA=
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:49:06 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
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 12:49:21 -0000


I believe it may be B2BUA along with proxy-capability that a Web server might have. However, Cullen and Jonathan might clearify this.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Ravindran Parthasarathi
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 6:28 PM
To: Cullen Jennings;;
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling


I like your proposed idea as it is going in the direction of having "standard" signaling protocol for RTCWeb. I'm seeing your proposal as SDP offer/answer over websocket and the proposal helps to easy gateway development between RTCWeb server and legacy signaling protocols.

I have fundamental question in the proposal as it proposes RTCWeb server as SIP proxy equivalent and in reality, unfortunately most of the SIP deployment work is based on B2BUA. The question is whether RTCWeb server shall be dialog-state or MUST be transaction-stateful only. 

Also, session-id in the draft is used to uniquely understand the offerer and answerer in the transaction or session. In case it is session, how to indicate the termination of the session.