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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Fri, 07 October 2011 01:46 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 0AC131F0C49 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:46:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, 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 snZNR7wVIPfl for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:46:16 -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 486A31F0C47 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so3443301vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.35.34 with SMTP id e2mr541514vdj.52.1317952167034; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14CE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
References: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E8AC222.4050308@alvestrand.no> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14CE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:49:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegf=ejF2kUC1m=74o9eprF1M8wYtgE-Crwa1x14rzDOf+gQ@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 01:46:17 -0000

2011/10/5 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>;:
> Sec 3 & 4 of the draft deals with the need and advantages for standard
> signaling protocol.

No


>I understand your major concern is time.

No, it's the proposal itself. Just you want it.


> I think through
> and provided some solution as part of the draft

The solution is forgetting your wrong idea and stop ignoring replyins
and rationale given to your *insistent* proposal.



> 1)      Sec 5:  (RTCWeb Protocol requirement and design consideration) is
> added to come up with the thump rules for standard signaling rather than
> discussion different protocol

And it's wrong (I will not repeat the arguments again).


> 2)      Sec 6:  The list of existing signaling protocol is shown for
> eliminating the signaling protocol based on Sec 5 conclusion

Yes, let's use MEGACO, or H323, or ISUP.


> In case time factor to solve this issue is the reason for rejecting this
> proposal , let us work for the better way to reduce the timeframe to achieve
> the result.

That's not the point.


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