IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Thu, 03 November 2011 11:23 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 F328511E80AC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 04:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.644
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.644 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, 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 Sc5RKYI2BWOB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 04:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ABBF11E8088 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 04:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfl11 with SMTP id fl11so1145865vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 04:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.115.208 with SMTP id j16mr680859vcq.33.1320319381329; Thu, 03 Nov 2011 04:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.107.206 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 04:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4EB26D22.5090000@ericsson.com>
References: <4EB26D22.5090000@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:23:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfnkmu6Hsh=G=-7zvkiLSJocqQFJkeFTzzLR2NGOzrx4Bg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <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: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:23:05 -0000

2011/11/3 Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>:
> Please consider that the current WG consensus is well captured in the
> overview draft:
>
>   If the two Web servers are operated by different entities, the
>   signalling path needs to be agreed upon, either by standardization or
>   by other means of agreement; for example, both servers might
>   implement SIP, and the servers would talk SIP to each other, and each
>   would translate between the SIP protocol and their proprietary
>   representation for sending to their application running in the
>   browser.  This part is outside the scope of the RTCWEB standars
>   suite.
>
> So, it may be SIP, it doesn't need to be SIP. The important from the
> WG's perspective is that is a possible deployment model we intended to
> support. It is not the only deployment model. We don't define what is
> used on the signalling path and there is freedom here.

I strongly agree with these conclusions: Freedom in-the-wire and let
the Web to decide.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email