Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

"Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <> Thu, 10 November 2011 11:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D294D21F8593 for <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 03:13:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.469
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TpevzPAWJZIo for <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 03:13:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA0D21F8430 for <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 03:13:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAABE0L0015565; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:14:00 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:06:32 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:36:42 +0530
Received: from ([fe80::8d0f:e4f9:a74f:3daf]) by ([fe80::5cbc:2823:f6cc:9ce7%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:36:41 +0530
From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <>
To: =?utf-8?B?ScOxYWtpIEJheiBDYXN0aWxsbw==?= <>, Wolfgang Beck <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:06:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <BLU152-W488BAA56546BEA4D42B4C893DF0@phx.gbl> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
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: "<>" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On Behalf
>Of Iñaki Baz Castillo
>Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 1:08 AM
>To: Wolfgang Beck
>Cc: <>
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments
>2011/11/9 Wolfgang Beck <>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
>rtcweb mailing list