Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

[Wolfgang Beck <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> wrote:
> [on Bernard's comments]
> can we simply say "Existing protocols (for example SIP or XMPP) could be
> used between the servers"?
>
> between servers, while either a standards-based or proprietary protocol
> could be used between the browser and the web server.

My concern about this trapezoid style connection of servers is this:
in order to limit the number protocol translators,
RTCWEB providers will use only a small number of server-to-server
protocols, most likely SIP and Jingle.

This will inevitably have influence on the JS client  / server
protocol design: why bother with innovative features that
don't translate well to SIP and Jingle anyway? Why not just do
Jingle/SIP over Websocket? And the opportunity of RTCWEB will be gone.
We will just see browser-based SIP, Jingle clients with fancy CSS
themes.

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.

It's a pity that the VWRAP people are no longer active in the IETF.
They really had a fresh view on those issues. Their
interconnection requirements where just to complex for the trapezoid
and nobody of them had a limiting telephony background.


Wolfgang Beck