- From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:41:01 +0200
- To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
- Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, rtcweb@ietf.org, public-webrtc@w3.org, Jonathan Rosenberg <jonathan.rosenberg@skype.net>
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>
Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 22:41:41 UTC