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

Bernard Aboba <> Tue, 04 October 2011 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D2621F8B21 for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:35:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.191
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.407, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KdekGJi2kECs for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC9D21F8B20 for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU152-W10 ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:38:28 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU152-W10A61A07CD91BB16576D3393FB0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_f7cacf1d-3619-48e0-bf25-836fd5979a43_"
X-Originating-IP: []
From: Bernard Aboba <>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 09:38:27 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>, <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Oct 2011 16:38:28.0447 (UTC) FILETIME=[0B6F4EF0:01CC82B4]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
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: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:35:24 -0000

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




    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


    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.







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

RTCWeb standard signaling protocol ( 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 mail thread discussion. Could you please provide your valuable comments.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] 
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

   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


The IETF Secretariat
rtcweb mailing list



rtcweb mailing list