Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Thu, 03 November 2011 12:28 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.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 5A8901F0C70 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 05:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.644
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 fl5s9DWz+5LE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 05:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6061F0C61 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 05:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so1229875vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.34.100 with SMTP id y4mr9366762vdi.66.1320323316392; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 05:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.107.206 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 05:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6CD2FA@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
References: <4EB26D22.5090000@ericsson.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6CD2FA@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:28:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegf=kiqHpV_cLk7vGbo=F28mRVbDLfMi_7Uo0+cXwALM7AA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments
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, 03 Nov 2011 12:28:37 -0000

2011/11/3 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>;:
> I agree with the consensus that there is no need to mandate any signaling protocol as Federation protocol for WebRTC.

Do you? I could find ~100 mails from you (including a draft and
slides) in which you advocate for the opposite, and not just about the
federation protocol, but also about mandating the in-the-wire protocol
in browser to server communication.

So I celebrate you agree now with the consensus :)


> Let Federation protocol be SIP or Jingle or any signaling protocol for that matter.
>
> I'm interested in asking the folks whether WG will be interested to see the "informational" draft on mapping with WebRTC signaling (ROAP + other mechanism) to standard federation protocol like SIP, Jingle. draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00 focus on the interworking with deployed SIP devices. My proposal is to extend the draft to  accommodate other standard federation protocol and also consider the possible other deployment scenario. The intention of the draft is to provide the implementation guidelines for the WebRTC Federation.

IMHO given that the consensus is not to define browser-to-server nor
server-to-server protocols, we should focus on remaining items rather
than spending time in informational topics. Or at least, I would wait
until remaining items are more defined (it could help in the document
you have in mind). Of course you are free to write it whenever you
want.

Regards.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>;