IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Friday Agenda: Re: Friday Call details for signaling discussion

Wolfgang Beck <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com> Thu, 20 October 2011 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com>
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 85AF121F8BA4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 AFxH7JvvNUf5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB6421F86B3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxj19 with SMTP id 19so3615313yxj.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=wZObR9Zc6UTSHOYnHQvnimsKwLJTBrEIfe8tjI2Os6E=; b=Hh4dyOkSIU/w3qje7P+jm5tDJgeHMY7VEgySvT0rN11X0w8sSDKdlKyyejqhiLihr2 j9xBKWNU6+9Fb7fus/PeBeSv9uRdaMI+3czsgAzcZnpBVjE6e8pIj9vplnKbOmD9q6l2 n6dAxR6RT7vR0QGKjgEMVO8NIWlaA5BW34inM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.4.200 with SMTP id m8mr3815362pbm.50.1319129940324; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.55.230 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E9FD139.2010406@ericsson.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBQDne_p7LmH_e38NQWqjjNh0jKjuLMZrtNh10db90hYg@mail.gmail.com> <4E9E9794.8000901@alvestrand.no> <4E9FD139.2010406@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:59:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAJUQMix=d3orAbUFtE-9Okb2EAwmV7yBpXFEX+zA23-17vRKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wolfgang Beck <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Friday Agenda: Re: Friday Call details for signaling discussion
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: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:59:01 -0000

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Magnus Westerlund
<magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:

> From my perspective both draft-beck-rtcweb-alt-ic-00 and
> draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket-00 are relevant documents to the
> discussion as they provides useful proposals on how interconnect and SIP
> interop respectively can be done. But as they aren't proposals for how
> the actual signaling solution should work. Thus these are homework but
> don't get presentation time.
It's a bit difficult to present an actual signaling situation if the
proposal is not to specify a signaling solution at all..



Wolfgang Beck

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status