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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <> Tue, 18 October 2011 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D570521F85B1 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.66
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.361, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H9RxObEh9row for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9A021F8532 for <>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:15:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9I8GLL1023417; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 04:16:22 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 04:15:47 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:45:44 +0530
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AcyNY9RKUZtq4/TvTF2m8ihYBiTuMwACTO9Q
References: <><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F3 86A979B F51159950@so> <>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
To: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Oct 2011 08:15:47.0730 (UTC) FILETIME=[24079F20:01CC8D6E]
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, 18 Oct 2011 08:15:55 -0000


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


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé []
>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:32 PM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Iñaki Baz Castillo;
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
>On Oct 17, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>> The point to be noted is folks put forth the same argument again &
>again..each time, it is not possible to come up new answer ;-) I noticed
>often you complain as if your important is missed out. We are arguing
>only about "nothing" vs "something" as a RTCWeb signaling protocol.
>> I clearly explained why SIP over websocket is an overkill in the below
>mail thread. Please read it and don't argue that it is working. All the
>working stuff is not good. Infact for any protocol, the first idea pop-
>up is to tunnel the complete inside (For Ex: ISUP over SIP) but always
>better ways to solve it.
>Let me connect the dots: you are advocating for a new 'simple' protocol
>instead of taking an existing one, SIP for example, which you called
>'overkill'. And earlier in this thread you mentioned that you are
>interested in gateways.
>I now understand what you are trying to do.
>Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
>AG Projects