Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

"Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Thu, 10 November 2011 11:13 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
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 D294D21F8593 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 03:13:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.170, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 TpevzPAWJZIo for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 03:13:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA0D21F8430 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 03:13:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sonusmail07.sonusnet.com (sonusmail07.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.157]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAABE0L0015565; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:14:00 -0500
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail07.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:06:32 -0500
Received: from INBA-HUB01.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.86]) by sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:36:42 +0530
Received: from INBA-MAIL01.sonusnet.com ([fe80::8d0f:e4f9:a74f:3daf]) by inba-hub01.sonusnet.com ([fe80::5cbc:2823:f6cc:9ce7%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:36:41 +0530
From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?ScOxYWtpIEJheiBDYXN0aWxsbw==?= <ibc@aliax.net>, Wolfgang Beck <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments
Thread-Index: AQHMmhOSpaBQnqnn3Ea06PkOYAyRWJWjRo+AgAAV/ACAAMveAIAASCWAgAAtNYCAAVuUAA==
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:06:40 +0000
Message-ID: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A992@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
References: <4EB26D22.5090000@ericsson.com> <FA65A239-CC86-4AC3-8A5A-91B7701C3FB5@cisco.com> <BLU152-W488BAA56546BEA4D42B4C893DF0@phx.gbl> <4EBA741A.1010307@alvestrand.no> <CAAJUQMiv3EyT3MzAUCzfXusG2Md-DnkA0sa3Hnx5CGVdh919ag@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfkCQv75=ACNB2vK1Mi=S4Q=nastG_LUgd1ohzSeKmBVtQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfkCQv75=ACNB2vK1Mi=S4Q=nastG_LUgd1ohzSeKmBVtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.70.54.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2011 11:06:42.0056 (UTC) FILETIME=[D395D880:01CC9F98]
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, 10 Nov 2011 11:13:26 -0000

It is a bad situation to implement "n" protocols in Gateways for federation 
as there is no standard to refer. Atleast in case of IP telephony, there is 
a convergence that SIP will be used as a de-facto protocol (no H.323/Megaco). 
It is really tough to manage in case there is no guidelines for RTCWeb server.

As I earlier mentioned, there is no need to mandate any specific protocol but
Guidelines is important. Also, I agree with your earlier mail that Federation work
item may not require to be completed in the normal WebRTC time-to-market manner.

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of Iñaki Baz Castillo
>Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 1:08 AM
>To: Wolfgang Beck
>Cc: <rtcweb@ietf.org>
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments
>
>2011/11/9 Wolfgang Beck <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com>om>:
>> This has happened with SIP. As most of the interconnection is done
>> through the PSTN, we don't see many exciting new SIP applications in
>> wide use.
>
>I don't fully understand why some SIP folks try to "export" the SIP
>trapezoid model to WebRTC taking into account that such trapezoid has
>never succeeded in pure SIP networks.
>
>Anyhow, reading the last mails in this thread... what are we
>discussing about? IHMO all of us (at least in this thread) agree on
>the fact that mandating/defining a server-to-server interconnection
>model is a no-go. Is it just about the exact text for the draft? It's
>easy, just say "two WebRTC sites can federate by using any mechanism
>they desire for such interconnection. It could be pure SIP, XMPP or
>whatever protocol/mechanism they agree."
>
>--
>Iñaki Baz Castillo
><ibc@aliax.net>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb