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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <> Wed, 05 October 2011 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3DAE21F8CEE for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.495
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0vXG37+NrwNo for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA20B21F8BEE for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p95IcDgQ010268; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:38:13 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:37:08 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC838D.C7D27D1D"
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 00:06:30 +0530
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Actionitems enclosed!)
Thread-Index: AcyDfhJQVBYuL0p7Sr2gx70Q5ZxaWQAC8NyA
References: <><> <>
From: "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <>
To: "Ted Hardie" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Oct 2011 18:37:08.0559 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9C3EDF0:01CC838D]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Actionitems enclosed!)
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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:34:42 -0000

Hi Ted,


Thanks for providing the opportunity to present my draft.


The main advantage of having standard signaling protocol are

1)      Easy RTCWeb app development by non-real-time Web developer.

2)      Better performance compare to JS based signaling


Sec 3 (Issues without RTCWeb standard signaling protocol) and Sec 4
(Standard RTCWeb signaling protocol advantages) are added to explain the
need for standard signaling protocol. My intention of sec 3 & sec 4 to
indicate that the weakness of "nothing" as a protocol and also to
indicate standard signaling protocol does not stop custom made signaling
protocol.  I understand from the review comments that the text in these
section has to be revised for clarity . Also few points which I received
as part of the draft review comment has to be added. Please let me know
in case you wish to see any specific point in these sections. 


I completely understand the "time to market" need for the RTCWeb
specification and also "n" of difference of opinion starting from
"nothing" to n number of variant of "standard signaling protocol". I
have mentioned the list of existing signaling protocol  in sec 6 to
select by which the time to develop the signaling protocol will be
avoided and also most of the existing protocol would have matured by
now. Also, I have added sec 5 of the draft to provide the strong
technical requirement of RTCWeb signaling which helps to select the
protocol in sec 6. Please let me know in case more concrete way to solve
this issue.





From: Ted Hardie [] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 10:15 PM
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB:
Actionitems enclosed!)


Hi Partha,

We'd be happy to consider a signaling protocol proposal from you.
Unfortunately, the current iteration of your draft does not contain a
concrete proposal so much as a discussion of the advantages of a
standardized signaling protocol.   To make further progress, the chairs
believe we need concrete proposals at this time.  Please let us know if
you would like to provide an update with a concrete proposal.



On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi
<> wrote:

Ted, Magnus, Cullen,


Could you please consider RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
( draft as
one of the proposal for this signaling discussion.


From: [] On Behalf
Of Ted Hardie
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:31 PM
Subject: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB:
Actionitems enclosed!)


At today's Chairs call, Cullen, Magnus and I had a discussion of how to
make progress on the signaling discussion.  We feel the mailing list
discussion needs to have more concrete proposals in order to make
progress, and so we're putting forward the following:

1) If you plan to put forward a draft proposing a concrete solution in
this space, please send your name to the mailing list with that intent
by October 7th *THIS FRIDAY*.

2) Please have a -00 draft out for discussion by October 14th (the
following Friday).  This is to allow for a discussion and update prior
to the -01 deadlines.

3) We will hold a conference call to discuss the drafts on October 21st
(the Friday after that).

Updates based on that discussion then have until the -01 drafts deadline
to be complete.

This is aggressive, but we feel we need to have at least -00s for the
different ideas in place in order to make real progress.


Ted, Magnus, Cullen