Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE:About defining a signaling protocol for WebRTC (or not)]

Saul Ibarra Corretge <saul@ag-projects.com> Sat, 08 October 2011 09:05 UTC

Return-Path: <saul@ag-projects.com>
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 E8F7321F8B13 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 02:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611]
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 Qvy6MfuQjTie for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 02:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node06.dns-hosting.info [85.17.186.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690EC21F8AAC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 02:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix, from userid 5001) id AC9FAB01B8; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 11:09:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.134] (235.4.222.87.dynamic.jazztel.es [87.222.4.235]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00A12B0057; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 11:09:02 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Saul Ibarra Corretge <saul@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14CD@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 11:09:03 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6CD854E0-7E8E-49C5-B320-659365860A1A@ag-projects.com>
References: <CALiegfnOCxyTo9ffQ272+ncdu5UdgrtDT-dn10BWGTZMEjZoCg@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C0A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><05CAC192-E462-421F-B1E5-B78DC8F60306@ag-projects.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0C93@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><16880306-5B3A-4EFD-ADE4-1201138D9182@acmepacket.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F137B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><226C9800-9791-465A-B519-40935E2D135F@phonefromhere.com><4E8B1B86.2080805@jesup.org> <8584590C8D7DD141AA96D01920FC6C698C8A84ED@gbplmail03.genband.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14CD@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb default signaling protocol [was RE: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: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 09:05:50 -0000

On Oct 5, 2011, at 7:49 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:

> Hi Jim,
> 
> For the given RTCWeb basic communication, if some other better signaling
> protocol exists, we will adopt for it. 
> 

And who will judge if protocol X is "better" than protocol Y? In what context? Under what assumptions? I don't this this is the right direction.

-- 
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects