Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Actionitems enclosed!)

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 05 October 2011 09:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 E21CF21F8B7C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 02:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.634
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.634 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 3gLu9Zz0dslb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 02:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A5EC21F8B67 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 02:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so1410093vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.120.12 with SMTP id b12mr646070vcr.111.1317806813575; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 02:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1450@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBi9BzDu=WOq3RG-o5nbfnUTftDg3LRBU3DFh=Kc4W5ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1450@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:26:53 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfm0b_spRSv=y+QVtXum1KZ3rpHWMoOgVqz+344chfr7HA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Actionitems enclosed!)
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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:23:47 -0000

2011/10/5 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>om>:
> Ted, Magnus, Cullen,
>
> Could you please consider RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
> (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00.txt) draft as one
> of the proposal for this signaling discussion.

Partha, instead of re-suggesting your draft in different threads,
please take the time to reply to the given rationale against your
insistent proposal.

Said that, your draft does NOT propose a signaling protocol, it just
wants to *mandate* that SOME specific protocol MUST be implemented in
all the rtcweb clients and servers. Please, forget that idea. There is
an extended reply and rationale for any of your arguments. A web
browser will not implement a native SIP or MEGACO stack, never (I
hope). The WWW world cannot be converted into a telco business.

Regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>