Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2011/11/3 Ravindran Parthasarathi <[e-mail]>:
> 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
<[e-mail]>