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

"Roy, Radhika R USA CIV (US)" <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil> Tue, 18 October 2011 13:08 UTC

Return-Path: <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil>
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 21D5F21F8B57 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.304
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.304 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 H4yQi9K8Uz6s for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge-cols.mail.mil (edge-cols.mail.mil [131.64.100.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35D3B21F8B55 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from UCOLHP3H.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.149) by UCOLHP4Z.easf.csd.disa.mil (131.64.100.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:08:10 -0500
Received: from UCOLHP4D.easf.csd.disa.mil ([169.254.9.97]) by UCOLHP3H.easf.csd.disa.mil ([169.254.169.168]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:08:10 -0500
From: "Roy, Radhika R USA CIV (US)" <radhika.r.roy.civ@mail.mil>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sa=FAl_Ibarra_Corretg=E9?= <saul@ag-projects.com>, Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AQHMjWPJQsg22CmbRQ+ec/AyTlzr85WCFU0AgAAXFYD//+Y8kA==
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:08:08 +0000
Message-ID: <8486C8728176924BAF5BDB2F7D7EEDDF3E091CA3@ucolhp4d.easf.csd.disa.mil>
References: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E8AC222.4050308@alvestrand.no><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14CE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CALiegf=ejF2kUC1m=74o9eprF1M8wYtgE-Crwa1x14rzDOf+gQ@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14FD@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><393F1888-F834-4DAE-B6B1-1C5D35EE3292@phonefromhere.com><CAOg=WDcC9t2KhQUg0gDJ60gO_2mNyMv9HKt=otCdPDfj4TnoTg@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F152B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CABRok6mM7TfbLgGhoQvdRh1Kwoi5BhRweLcqWg7VZOFnaa8VOw@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1532@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CABRok6n33QK0Si1Y0kT7+U0zgAWsJ4d5GENK_KL-JPx5a4erYg@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF511598EE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><665A16AB-AAD8-42B3-AC17-7E629EA2DE35@phonefromhere.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5115992E@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfmrncjsLVSiWk0tEgzwB00YaBGiqj0SDf9JTm9p1ZNoVA@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F3 86A979B F51159950@so nusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <0950F0E1-6E4B-407F-9563-654AFE79F64B@ag-projects.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159994@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <6398F67A-5E41-44BB-ABB2-831AB7C48DCC@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <6398F67A-5E41-44BB-ABB2-831AB7C48DCC@ag-projects.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [131.64.77.9]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:08:12 -0000

Hi, Saúl

Is there a way to do negotiations with different codec types and different features of a given codec without using a signaling protocol between the two functional entities?

BR/Radhika

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:38 AM
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol


On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:

> Saul,
> 
> One minor correction in your mail: I have mentioned "SIP over websocket" is an overkill and not SIP.
> 

You confuse me. You said before that the JS libraries would take time to download and all that, and now you say that SIP is not overkill. I don't see another way of using SIP in a browser (without plugins) than using JS for the stack and WebSocket as a transport.

Either way, there seems to be a consensus that no signaling protocol should be specified, time to move on.

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects



_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb