Re: [rtcweb] Friday Call details for signaling discussion

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 19 October 2011 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 4E4CC21F863E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 PYNIzpekAYKs for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A2421F8634 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766C239E162; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:25:41 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FY3F30Z9mWWU; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:25:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (62-20-124-50.customer.telia.com [62.20.124.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08AC639E0D2; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:25:41 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E9E9794.8000901@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:25:40 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBQDne_p7LmH_e38NQWqjjNh0jKjuLMZrtNh10db90hYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBQDne_p7LmH_e38NQWqjjNh0jKjuLMZrtNh10db90hYg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Friday Call details for 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: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:25:44 -0000

On 10/19/11 01:22, Ted Hardie wrote:
> Below are the call-in details for Friday's call.  This is meant to 
> give any interested working group participants some extra time in 
> high-bandwidth discussions while we hash out the signaling proposals 
> that have circulated on the list.  I expect discussion will include 
> ROAP as well as either a proposal from Hadriel and/or Wolfgang Beck's 
> alt-ic draft.
Will you be sending out an official reading list before the call?

My current list of maybe-relevant material includes:

- draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling-00 (ROAP)
- draft-beck-rtcweb-alt-ic-00 (always using a single Web server)
- draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00 (advocates picking a standard 
signaling protocol, lists candidates)
- draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket-00 (on use of WebSocket as a SIP 
subprotocol)
- Neil Stratford's "low level JS API" proposal:
   
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1MfrFHKx6O6yWtIv_jqwyH-RAbm8AgRtXQ7dJTZz5J2g

I can't find any other docs at the moment.

Of these, I would see ROAP and Neil Stratford's document as the ones 
that come closest to being "concrete solutions" as I understood the 
intent of that word in the call sent out on October 4.

But I may have missed some, or the chairs might want to rule the "low 
level JS API" out of scope, since it's not an I-D (or referred to by an 
I-D) at this time.

                     Harald