IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Mon, 17 October 2011 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.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 3646C1F0C49 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.687
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.687 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.388, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 1+cJJjrAXqag for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B12B1F0C43 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail05.sonusnet.com (sonusmail05.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.155]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9HN0kfx018917; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:00:46 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail05.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:00:11 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 04:29:52 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159959@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfnGfpWooceicAbLQ35oVDUZC6+d=903qSKkxW952i-8pw@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
Thread-Index: AcyNHduOwxTHqnVzSKKXipjSzCRdYwAAZJCQ
References: <15B0E3AD-3086-499A-8E79-7AE58B3376C4@cisco.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159957@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfnGfpWooceicAbLQ35oVDUZC6+d=903qSKkxW952i-8pw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2011 23:00:11.0961 (UTC) FILETIME=[865CF290:01CC8D20]
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg <jonathan.rosenberg@skype.net>, rtcweb@ietf.org, public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
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: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:00:15 -0000

Inaki,

Heaven sake, Please reply with original text. You always cut the text in reply so badly that I have to repeat what I have said in the original mail again in the reply. Your cutting practice leads to circular discussion and let us try to avoid it.

Original mail statement is as follows:
<snip>
I'm seeing your proposal as SDP offer/answer over websocket
</snip>

Hope this clarify what I meant. Also, Please see bullet 2 in sec 6 of draft-partha-rtcweb-signaling-00 to get the whole picture.

Thanks,
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:ibc@aliax.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:11 AM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Cullen Jennings; rtcweb@ietf.org; public-webrtc@w3.org; Jonathan
>Rosenberg
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
>
>2011/10/18 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>:
>> I like your proposed idea as it is going in the direction of having
>> "standard" signaling protocol for RTCWeb.
>
>Please Ravindran, don't manipulate mails, text and draft given by
>other persons in this WG. The draft *clearly* says:
>
>--------------------
>The protocol specified here defines the state machines, semantic
>behaviors, and messages that are exchanged between instances of the
>state machines. ***However, it does not specify the actual on-the-wire
>transport of these messages.*** Rather, it assumes that the
>implementation of this protocol would occur within the browser itself,
>and then browser APIs would allow the application's JavaScript to
>request creation of messages and insert messages into the state
>machine. ***The actual transfer of these messages would be the
>responsibility of the web application, and would utilize protocols
>such as HTTP and WebSockets.*** To facilitate implementation within a
>browser, JSON notation is used to describe the message
>--------------------
>
>No, this is not a draft about a "default signaling protocol" for
>RTCweb. Wrong. This is just a protocol for communication between the
>JavaScript code and the RTCweb stack in the browser. It does NOT
>mandate how the signaling messages are sent on-the-wire.
>
>So this has nothing to do with your insistent proposal of having a
>"default signaling protocol" that all the RTCweb clients "should
>implement". Sorry.
>
>
>--
>Iñaki Baz Castillo
><ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email