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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <> Fri, 07 October 2011 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35F2921F8B07 for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.047
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3tj33VGL5ND6 for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F81421F8B00 for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 03:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p97AqJCr027358; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 06:52:19 -0400
Received: from ([]) by 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, 07 Oct 2011 16:21:36 +0530
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
Thread-Index: AcyE3swqNGgbPZS6RO2Ek/94xJaBugAAD5eQ
References: <><><><><><><><> <>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2011 10:51:39.0700 (UTC) FILETIME=[17B1BF40:01CC84DF]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol
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: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 10:48:35 -0000

Let us debate on the RTCWeb signaling meeting


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iñaki Baz Castillo []
>Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 4:19 PM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: samuel; Tim Panton;
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
>2011/10/7 Ravindran Parthasarathi <>:
>> Your argument is "Time to market" RTCWeb compliance and few folks
>> 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
>> 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