IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Do we still need PRANSWER?

"Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> Thu, 05 July 2012 09:12 UTC

Return-Path: <oej@edvina.net>
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 BEFF921F853C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 02:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 eUleSi8q-VbC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 02:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp7.webway.se (smtp7.webway.se [IPv6:2a02:920:212e::205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AC0321F853B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 02:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.40.89] (h87-96-134-129.dynamic.se.alltele.net [87.96.134.129]) by smtp7.webway.se (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 57B61754A8AA; Thu, 5 Jul 2012 09:12:58 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxui0XeYA8GOnNCkPin_XjOoNvEHeQq1OcmEJ1aYpbF3_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:12:55 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A31099AA-3753-47AC-B1CC-F44B610AD45E@edvina.net>
References: <CAD5OKxui0XeYA8GOnNCkPin_XjOoNvEHeQq1OcmEJ1aYpbF3_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Do we still need PRANSWER?
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: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 09:12:49 -0000

4 jul 2012 kl. 21:46 skrev Roman Shpount:

> It looks like WebRTC-SIP interop without an application layer gateway would not be possible in the near future due to all the media transport requirements that were introduced. Given that SIP interop is no longer possible

I think that's a bad conclusion, Roman.

I talked about the installed base of SIP devices and their RTP stack. It doesn't mean that ALL SIP implementations won't be able to interop with WebRTC and that there never will be SIP connected to webrtc, either in a browser app or in a server implementation. I do expect that new SIP apps will arise and that the current ones will be upgrading. 

SIP interop is definitely possible in WebRTC regardless of the RTP layer.

I still think there's value in interop with a large installed base of RTP-capable devices. Having media relays in the media path is known not to improve media quality.

/O

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email