Re: [rtcweb] SIP Glare - Re: Minimal SDP negotiation mechanism

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi Cullen, 

>>> Magnus' analysis worries me a bit, because it seems to assume 
>>> specific functionality in the gateway (tracking of state and ability 
>>> to generate SIP messages depending on state).
>>> It seems reasonably simple to build a gateway, but we quickly get to 
>>> the point where we have to write standards for the gateway function 
>>> .... which could lead us down rather deep ratholes.
>> 
>> Are we assuming that a media gateway will be required for RTP/media 
>> communication between a WebRTC client (web browser) and a SIP node?
>> If such decision is taken IMHO it's sad.
>
>My take is that most people want to make sure that a translator between SIP and web stuff would only need to look at signalling - it would not touch the media. I'm working on the asumption that is what any solution will look like. 
>So, no media GW. 

If so, what is your assumption then regarding ICE? That the SIP nodes will support ICE, or that the browser will be allowed to communicate with the SIP nodes without enabling ICE?

Regards,

Christer