IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Forking usecase [was RE: draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00]

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Fri, 28 October 2011 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 356EF21F8A62 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.181, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 sCwl1nCnoS4y for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E4121F8A7D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB7A39E165; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:27:34 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jJeKXzolp3kZ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:27:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [172.19.29.10] (216-239-45-4.google.com [216.239.45.4]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94A3939E048; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:27:33 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4EAAF413.8030501@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:27:31 -0700
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
References: <20111024224257.28459.65554.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com><6EB8679A-13D5-4AD7-97F2-BC35FC0966F0@acmepacket.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159C32@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfnVaZjh1K+brd180Z9Ufheau3v6OJe6Ejv8P7wzw6ROQw@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159D7A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159D7A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Forking usecase [was RE: draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00]
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, 28 Oct 2011 18:27:36 -0000

On 10/28/2011 10:56 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
> By looking at draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-06, I could not see any specific requirement for RTCWeb forking. In case SIP forking is the only requirement for RTCWeb and also, RTCWeb does not have any specific forking requirement, then the gateway between RTCWeb&  SIP shall take care of the functionality. I'm asking this question to get the clarity on whether SIP forking feature has to impact RTCWeb client requirement or not.
I believe the "Fedex IVR" case was specifically intended to surface the 
requirement for "non-final responses" (switching a media stream from the 
initial responder to a next responder).
That's one form of forking ("serial fork"?)

I haven't understood forking to be a requirement in any other use case.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email