Re: [rtcweb] No Plan

Sergio Garcia Murillo <> Thu, 30 May 2013 22:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 777A421F86CA for <>; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4vMr3bZxJD-F for <>; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::235]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6607721F8555 for <>; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u57so703308wes.40 for <>; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3vCE8Jisy/ooVpq3AEMR55ntXH2cJ6B0OmZGkKIkMPc=; b=g2W9v8v7jvgfvVmWcugAlF3896CjOjoRf5VUyl53GrnkKUhpTdfraJ0vo+tJejFjG9 p1IF3uGu+m3+gol5ZEWNz+srqYrMQSODMxLyB/XERRNtuBaW3AaDEo+kWks2YP85CDE8 NqFpUjZ7c8HzUhrdOxUTJv9WLDnQaHSVopw3G8FFgwUsPeKB3kGsM/9ENAyffb7tB2mO 3O6Y05b/u6rWO7Y++moW8+Bk2giJiyzgOw/3WpqlUSX7YCPVranjIR/EBlILHIpUv021 RGyCCf6nrfPGC9gf0iRGhb/CIRULRg5GWCIDJ3P4OFNHg8pHd/cNEINMl23K/FmiQ2Dj yQ9w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ua3mr592510wib.55.1369951618434; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id fv11sm122975wic.11.2013. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 May 2013 15:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 00:06:57 +0200
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No Plan
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, 30 May 2013 22:07:00 -0000

El 30/05/2013 23:33, Iñaki Baz Castillo escribió:
> 2013/5/30 Gunnar Hellstrom <>se>:
>> I find it to be good to have a specified ambition for legacy
>> interoperability.
>> But I cannot see how we could specify it without RTP based real-time text on
>> the SIP side.
> So honestly I don't understand why WebRTC should care about "text 
> messaging via RTP", and I really hope that "MSRP" word is never 
> included in any RTCWEB WG specification. IMHO it's already enough 
> having 3 proposals attempting to adapt SDP into WebRTC requirements. 

To be fair, only two proposals try to modify the SDP, the third about 
not adapting the SDP or change the O/A model.

> Gateways are required, in any way, for connecting WebRTC and the world 
> outside (SIP, PSTN, etc), let's leave those gateways to do the "magic" 
> instead of proposing that a browser can send text messages via RTP to 
> a SIP phone. Just my opinion.

Indeed. I understand Gunnar requirements for RTT, but as you say, to 
connect to legacy devices you would need a gateway in the middle anyway. 
If the gateway support datachannels, It would be fairly trivial to 
bridge the real time text data from T140 rtp packets from/to the browser.

Best regards