IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 09 November 2011 00:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 35D581F0C3E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:33:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.637
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.637 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 X-25ivBtb764 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A24D91F0C3B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so1188095vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:33:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.33.239 with SMTP id u15mr265474vdi.49.1320798825064; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:33:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.107.206 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:33:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W488BAA56546BEA4D42B4C893DF0@phx.gbl>
References: <4EB26D22.5090000@ericsson.com> <FA65A239-CC86-4AC3-8A5A-91B7701C3FB5@cisco.com> <BLU152-W488BAA56546BEA4D42B4C893DF0@phx.gbl>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:33:24 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegf=pUaKLkJZ_O_GtnnWxNBWb=T+Edogz575tPVitqVPg7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: 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: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:33:46 -0000

2011/11/9 Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>:
> Here's a rewrite that makes more sense (at least to me):
>
> "If the two Web servers are operated by different entities, the
> inter-domain signalling mechanism needs to be agreed upon, either by
> standardization or by other means of agreement.  Existing protocols that
> support federation (SIP or XMPP) could be used to enable inter-domain
> federation between servers, while either a standards-based or proprietary
> protocol could be used between the browser and the web server.
>
> For example, if both domains implement SIP,  SIP could be used for
> inter-domain communication between servers, along with either a standardized
> signaling mechanism (e.g. SIP over Websockets) or a a proprietary signaling
> mechanism used between the application running in the browser and the web
> server.
>
> Similarly, if both domains implement XMPP, XMPP couild be used for
> inter-domain communication between XMPP servers, with either a standardized
> signaling mechanism (e.g. XMPP over Websockets or BOSH) or a proprietary
> signaling mechanism used between the application running in the browser and
> the web server."

Which basically means the same as saying nothing or "if you want do
whatever you want".

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email