Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Wed, 09 November 2011 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398CF21F8C6A for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 06:00:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.636
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YRJ3nba4GZUa for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 06:00:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8FF21F8C5E for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 06:00:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vcbfk1 with SMTP id fk1so1603703vcb.31 for <>; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:00:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id kc1mr4750254vdb.66.1320847201058; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:00:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:59:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:59:40 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
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: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:00:02 -0000

Hi Partha, just as a suggestion it would be great if you could make
correct usage of your mail client and configure it to properly
generate mail responses (by adding ">" in front of the text you are
replying) so you could stop adding <partha> to point your own text.
Writing mails in plain text (without HTML and colorized text) is also
desirable as stated in Netiquette and make easier reading your mails
to others.

More inline:

2011/11/9 Ravindran, Parthasarathi <>om>:
> Only at the point you want to interop with that legacy world. Skype did a
> pretty good job of avoiding the legacy and changing users expectations of
> telecommunications.
> <partha> AFAIK, Skype still interop with legacy telephone devices using SIP
> </partha>

Yes, but they use their own gateways and don't bothers their end users
by making Skype software to allow non secure communications. The work
is done in their gateways.

In the same way, if you want WebRTC to interoperate at media plane
with your legacy-non-secure-at-all SIP/RTP infrastructure, then build
a gateway or whatever you need. This is not the task of WebRTC nor
this WG.

> If there is a market for interop (which there clearly is) then multiple
> vendors will no doubt offer gateways. I'm just concerned that we are talking
> about imposing legacy requirements on the core API, when WebRTC seems an
> ideal opportunity to break away from that legacy.
> <partha>  In case core API is not defined for it, I agree with Keith that
> RTCWeb has to explain or provide the guideline for the server/gateway role
> and IMO, it is discussed as federation till now in RTCWeb.  </partha>

You should forget about "federation in WebRTC". That's a no-go. If a
WebRTC scenario wants to interoperate with other WebRTC scenario or
with a SIP/H323/Jingle network, they both should agree on the terms of
the interoperation between their systems. The only WebRTC can state
about that is an "empty" text like "they can use SIP/XMPP or whatever
protocol/mechanism they decide in order to interoperate" which is the
very same as saying "do whatever you want".


Iñaki Baz Castillo