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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Thu, 20 October 2011 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3368E21F8A71 for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:45:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.626
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.626 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2+7cnvV0ITXs for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD2321F8A70 for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so2778541vcb.31 for <>; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id a11mr10207288vdg.1.1319107531657; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:45:31 +0200
Message-ID: <>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Friday Agenda: Re: Friday Call details for signaling discussion
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: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:45:34 -0000

2011/10/20 Magnus Westerlund <>:
> The proposed agenda for Firday is as follows:
> 10 min introduction from each signaling proposal:
> - draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling-00 (ROAP) Cullen
> - draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00 (Standard signaling protocol) Partha
> - ? (No Protocol) ?
> In the above only clarifying questions may occur.
> 20 min discussion of each proposal
> 30 min concluding discussion
> 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.

Hi Magnus. Honestly I don't consider that discussing about
draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket-00 should take place. It's just a
suggestion about a signaling protocol in RTCweb (in this case pure SIP
over WebSocket). It's not my aim that the WG considers such spec as a
standard signaling for RTCweb. Well, this is basically the same you
have said :)

In the other said, I'd really would like that, before the meeting, all
the folks could take some time to read:

This means not wasting time if somebody proposes ROAP as a "default
signaling protocol" because ROAP is not that and cannot do that (more
info in the given links). Also, given the general confusion when the
term "signaling" appears in this WG, I've tryied to clarify its
meaning(s) in RTCweb context (first link).

For those who advocate for a "default signaling protocol", I hope
second link should make them to re-think about what such erroneous
decision would entail in current and *existing* WWW world.

Best regards.

Iñaki Baz Castillo