[rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)

gao.yang2@zte.com.cn Thu, 15 September 2011 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <gao.yang2@zte.com.cn>
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 C656021F84BC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, 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 ZGq4ts+4Knnj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:56:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx6.zte.com.cn [95.130.199.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2BE121F84B0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.17.100] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 46621977368623; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:58:07 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by [192.168.168.16] with StormMail ESMTP id 84831.1847729665; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:58:10 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id p8F0w6s4091551; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:58:06 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from gao.yang2@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfnOCxyTo9ffQ272+ncdu5UdgrtDT-dn10BWGTZMEjZoCg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 3CAEB213:54D7E89A-4825790C:00054129; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF3CAEB213.54D7E89A-ON4825790C.00054129-4825790C.00056DD5@zte.com.cn>
From: gao.yang2@zte.com.cn
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:58:01 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.1FP4|July 25, 2010) at 2011-09-15 08:58:06, Serialize complete at 2011-09-15 08:58:06
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00056DD24825790C_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn p8F0w6s4091551
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)
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: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:56:22 -0000

> So my proposal is that WebRTC should not mandate a signaling protocol
> in the web-browser, but just define a requeriment for managing
> multimedia sessions from the JavaScript code given a well defined API.
> IMHO this is the way that fits well with the flexibility of the web
> and lets each web provider to decide which technology to use as
> signaling protocol, rather than forcing him to implement
> SIP/XMPP/other-protocol in server side.


+1


--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.