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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <> Mon, 17 October 2011 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3646C1F0C49 for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.687
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1+cJJjrAXqag for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B12B1F0C43 for <>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9HN0kfx018917; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:00:46 -0400
Received: from ([]) by 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: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
Thread-Index: AcyNHduOwxTHqnVzSKKXipjSzCRdYwAAZJCQ
References: <><> <>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2011 23:00:11.0961 (UTC) FILETIME=[865CF290:01CC8D20]
Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg <>,,
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
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: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:00:15 -0000


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:
I'm seeing your proposal as SDP offer/answer over websocket

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.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iñaki Baz Castillo []
>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:11 AM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Cullen Jennings;;; Jonathan
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP Offer/Answer draft-jennings-rtcweb-signaling
>2011/10/18 Ravindran Parthasarathi <>:
>> 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