IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] Do we still need PRANSWER?

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Wed, 04 July 2012 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 8CCD921F8618 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 2rwK0psXbfOB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BCD521F8565 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so11802841pbc.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=eO2xtArcS3H2vbFhUOUwCq637a6eSRRxjm6eud6Ls8Y=; b=M9H5nvCNhCnWYszVJs3H95GOvsS9XcLOdMxE1V4ma9iuIZfRWJIuRbxsWZuJpHU7a9 AGenJrgBf04EqxcXyA7vf5jel/Oadv/suNf7bNjyTwlKBrzBu9nOIKTsflp+Gq+FANno oUcma4y7a2sem1blD0kANvwyWaIRiM+pXH3fVlX+zTfVY59u0UYVk1WP1g3wYnHyVj33 Iw+4fKIj0H2eCbWdNkTAu9+ntyFwvdInzDvOkd63qzuSCMdRaYR3jmkA6N4llu/ryZQS 4vaVjVh+7ZzyRlGcZX1nXcROIB6FmDjh3ypn9Lq/NpSGDujF6NnnjsbGx487I662zznu WT2w==
Received: by 10.68.222.40 with SMTP id qj8mr21647508pbc.139.1341431213619; Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:46:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wf7sm18229337pbc.34.2012.07.04.12.46.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so11802757pbc.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.222.103 with SMTP id ql7mr21959615pbc.68.1341431210945; Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.194.202 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:46:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxui0XeYA8GOnNCkPin_XjOoNvEHeQq1OcmEJ1aYpbF3_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b2ed431d1abaa04c4064a6f"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnjU2+V8ldxovOGgCsYQF3Mc0AMeGzbwdXz8B8LjPO3W6FaTRzzPF7q95f3pYnjz86I8esW
Subject: [rtcweb] Do we still need PRANSWER?
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: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 19:46:42 -0000

It looks like WebRTC-SIP interop without an application layer gateway would
not be possible in the near future due to all the media transport
requirements that were introduced. Given that SIP interop is no longer
possible, why do we still need PRANSWER? Since an application layer gateway
must be deployed, the same gateway can handle both serial and parallel
forking. The WebRTC application will work with the gateway to create new
streams or to create new connections, as necessary when new SIP dialogs are
created and new answers are received.
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email