Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Fri, 07 October 2011 10:48 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 35F2921F8B07 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.047
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.348, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, 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 3tj33VGL5ND6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F81421F8B00 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail04.sonusnet.com (sonusmail04.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.98]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p97AqJCr027358; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 06:52:19 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail04.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 06:51:39 -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: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:21:36 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F152D@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegf=BubV4-uBeoK6vvNiug4ooYb-mP8U3rGVCLa1fwJWFtg@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AcyE3swqNGgbPZS6RO2Ek/94xJaBugAAD5eQ
References: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E8AC222.4050308@alvestrand.no><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14CE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CALiegf=ejF2kUC1m=74o9eprF1M8wYtgE-Crwa1x14rzDOf+gQ@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14FD@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><393F1888-F834-4DAE-B6B1-1C5D35EE3292@phonefromhere.com><CAOg=WDcC9t2KhQUg0gDJ60gO_2mNyMv9HKt=otCdPDfj4TnoTg@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F152B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegf=BubV4-uBeoK6vvNiug4ooYb-mP8U3rGVCLa1fwJWFtg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?ScOxYWtpIEJheiBDYXN0aWxsbw==?= <ibc@aliax.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2011 10:51:39.0700 (UTC) FILETIME=[17B1BF40:01CC84DF]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
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: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:48:35 -0000

Let us debate on the RTCWeb signaling meeting

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:ibc@aliax.net]
>Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 4:19 PM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: samuel; Tim Panton; rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
>protocol
>
>2011/10/7 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>;:
>> Your argument is "Time to market" RTCWeb compliance and few folks
>already
>> mentioned about it and also proposing to develop the new protocol.
>
>And *lot* of folks already mentioned that your proposal is bad for
>WebRTC, but you don't say that. You still continue ignoring arguments
>and persons you cannot reply. Tim's argument is not just about "Time
>to market". Anyone reading his mail would also read the third
>paragraph (which you intentionally ignore now, of course, as you
>always do).
>
>
>
>> At this moment, I don't think that there is a need for developing new
>> signaling protocol for RTCweb. IMO, The argument may be which is best
>> suitable rather than none of the protocol is suitable.
>
>Please, don't try to distract this WG for achieving your goals. There
>is not, and there will not be, a discussion/debate about which one is
>the "best default and *mandatory* signaling protocol".
>
>
>
>> In case your proposal is not to invent new protocol for RTCWeb
>signaling.
>> Please look at my draft which is in the same line.
>
>Sure, your draft is just any of your mails copy&pasted into a draft.
>
>
>
>--
>Iñaki Baz Castillo
><ibc@aliax.net>;