Re: [rtcweb] RTCweb signalling overview

"Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com> Fri, 09 September 2011 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mperumal@cisco.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 CE08921F8A7B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.373
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 txpECTy6Gqu6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5C821F8997 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=mperumal@cisco.com; l=39225; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1315574727; x=1316784327; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:from:to; bh=wzZetMKpiyv5ayFcczEphJMVTJr520xUuJRL4D1AFSM=; b=jb7ImY56cBxVmRQTTojMhLWLcEZQd2rppLUKHNPrhsWLwVsdM1HLS0s2 mtN7JwRwYymmBdvQIs2yAz2MuQrVxmd4giRRt54PZjqsHyXVQpiZmL5fY 78anaQPELQDzvplGMmtP6gYnWq4mdx4ZXNj/TwfBYN0RIzWkPaIleaeEJ s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar0AALESak5Io8UT/2dsb2JhbAA3CoJNliqPGHiBUgEBAQEDAQEBDwEJEQM+GwIBCBEEAQELBhABBgEGASUBHwkIAQEEAQoHAQgBEgeHWJkvAZ5Tg0eCR2AEh2uQa4wE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.68,356,1312156800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="114720018"
Received: from bgl-core-4.cisco.com ([72.163.197.19]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2011 13:25:25 +0000
Received: from xbh-bgl-411.cisco.com (xbh-bgl-411.cisco.com [72.163.129.201]) by bgl-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p89DPOKr027096; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:25:24 GMT
Received: from xmb-bgl-414.cisco.com ([72.163.129.210]) by xbh-bgl-411.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:55:24 +0530
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC6EF3.EE25D19E"
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 18:55:19 +0530
Message-ID: <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206557F48@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE220BA3C91@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] RTCweb signalling overview
Thread-Index: AcxuwbOFVUfX7jiRRHeJtJuTZ9HjpQALqydQAACotHA=
References: <E2827B1C-5706-41D0-8D96-D342C25901D1@edvina.net><4E69BF72.5060908@alvestrand.no> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE220BA3C91@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
From: "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Sep 2011 13:25:24.0416 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE7CB400:01CC6EF3]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCweb signalling overview
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: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:23:35 -0000

|Perhaps the easiest way out is to identify that full 
|blow SIP is a solution for this specific interface, 
|and RTCWEB identifies to SIPCORE as to whether there 
|are any additional requirements that SIP cannot meet.
 
Doesn't this federated SIP suffer from the same problems VIPR is trying
to solve? Of course, the alternative is to choose SIP trunk providers
and go through SBCs and PSTN -:)
 
Muthu
 
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 6:39 PM
To: Harald Alvestrand; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCweb signalling overview
 
With respect to question 3 in this set.
 
As I said on the call, the requirements for what needs to be
standardised between the two web servers depends on whether web server A
needs to know anything about user B, and whether web server B needs to
know anything about user A. I believe this goes beyond SDP, because it
may need to be information beyond the media contents, e.g. it may need
to include information about each user's capabilities and preferences.
 
I actually have two slightly inconsistent views about this interface.
 
Yes it does need to be standardised. I don't like the idea of
fragmentation being forced on the market because an appropriate
standardised solution has not been identified. 
 
No RTCWEB should not standardise it because it is out of scope of
RTCWEB.
 
Surely this is also the interface by which support of interworking with
legacy systems has to be attained?
 
Perhaps the easiest way out is to identify that full blow SIP is a
solution for this specific interface, and RTCWEB identifies to SIPCORE
as to whether there are any additional requirements that SIP cannot
meet.
 
Regards
 
Keith
 
 
 
________________________________

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: 09 September 2011 08:26
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCweb signalling overview
 
On 09/08/11 20:48, Olle E. Johansson wrote: 
For those of you that did not participate in today's meeting, there was
an excellent overview presented by Martin Kaufman. 
 
It gives you an overview over the issues with signalling - to sip or not
to sip - and other issues. Do read it.
 
Use the file rtcweb-3.pptx
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/rtcweb-3.pptx>  in
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/

Seconded.
I liked the presentation even though I don't agree with the conclusions
(I prefer Cullen's set).


 
/O
 
 
 
 
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb