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

Agree with Harald on this.   Debating which alternative is "the best" is a distraction.  One of the major advantages of RTCWEB is the flexibility it provides with respect to signaling.  

Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 10:21:54 +0200
From: harald@alvestrand.no
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol

    Ravindran,

    the core part of your document seems to me to be this list:

       The following Signaling protocols will qualify for becoming standard
   RTCWeb signaling protocol

   1.  Jingle
   2.  Websocket with SDP offer/answer
   3.  SIP
   4.  SIPLite [I-D.cbran-rtcweb-protocols]
   5.  Websocket with custom XML
   6.  Megaco [RFC5125]
   7.  Websocket with SIP [I-D.ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket]
   8.  HTTP with custom XML
   9.  ???

   TBD: Pros and cons for each of the signaling mechanism has to be
   added

    My reading of your document is that you want the RTCWEB working
    group to pick exactly one of these alternatives, and insist that all
    conformant implementations of RTCWEB support this protocol.

    I disagree with:

    a) that this is needed

    b) that this is a good idea

    The reasons why it is not a good idea have been raised multiple
    times, and spending continued effort on trying to debate which of
    the alternatives you list above is "the best one" is distracting to
    our purpose of getting the RTCWEB protocol suite done.

    I do not support pursuing your suggested direction of work in this
    working group.

                         Harald

    On 10/03/2011 04:41 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:

      Hi all,

RTCWeb standard signaling protocol (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00) draft list the need for standard signaling protocol between RTCWeb client (browser) and RTCWeb server and the possible signaling protocol for the same. This draft is written based on http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg01172.html mail thread discussion. Could you please provide your valuable comments.

Thanks
Partha

-----Original Message-----
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] 
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 7:56 PM
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
Cc: Ravindran Parthasarathi
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Parthasarathi Ravindran and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling
Revision:	 00
Title:		 RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Creation date:	 2011-10-03
WG ID:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 8

Abstract:
   The standardization of Real time communication between browsers is to
   provide the infrastructure for audio, video, text communication using
   standard interface so that interoperable communication can be
   established between any compatible browsers.  RTCWeb specific
   Javascript API will be provided by browsers for developing real-time
   web application.  It is possible to develop signaling protocol like
   Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) or Jingle or websocket extension or
   custom-made signaling protocol in Javascript.  There are lots of
   issues in Javascript based signaling protocol.  This document list
   the need for standard signaling protocol between RTCWeb client
   (browser) and RTCWeb server and possible signaling protocol for the
   same.

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

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