Re: [rtcweb] Current state of signaling discussion

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 18 October 2011 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 0DF8321F8B11 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.956
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.956 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 mMPgQKVprfno for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83ACD21F8B10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so993588vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.91.7 with SMTP id ca7mr4459401vdb.29.1318974990474; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.161.20 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <48FB392E-A65C-44B8-B526-D7DD10C72D7E@acmepacket.com>
References: <4E9D773A.4010705@ericsson.com> <E7E0C331-9943-444F-9D42-782DAD6A7FF3@acmepacket.com> <CABcZeBP0v=q7sH4G4Ehvx7x5b_tyoukS1N0EOm1Ji8URNOeDUw@mail.gmail.com> <F89E752A-820B-4C41-BE14-15B358BFA267@acmepacket.com> <CABcZeBMmB=Lgo3eRXR6VdUwxndGcquije1wVfOcYWwOF+y5gOg@mail.gmail.com> <48FB392E-A65C-44B8-B526-D7DD10C72D7E@acmepacket.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:55:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBML=H7i8TD1toEa3Byx9eC-VCDaMXSyTpefHELj4SEsfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <rtcweb-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Current state of 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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:01:48 -0000

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>; wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>> One might already have much of this stuff in your application to support
>> whatever person-to-person communications (E.g., IM) you already
>> have. When I heard "20 lines of code" I always assumed that it excluded that
>> sort of routing-type stuff.
>
> But that's the point exactly - OF COURSE that type of stuff might already be in your application, and could be conveyed in a URL or all be implicit or whatever.  Or it might not at all be in your app and need to added for this in some way.
>
> And that's the point many of us have been making: don't define a standard signaling protocol, because it's all application-specific to the web-app, which only the web-app developer would possibly know.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me. Did I say something different?

-Ekr