Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

[Ravindran Parthasarathi <[e-mail]>]

I agree with the consensus that there is no need to mandate any signaling protocol as Federation protocol for WebRTC. Let Federation protocol be SIP or Jingle or any signaling protocol for that matter. 

I'm interested in asking the folks whether WG will be interested to see the "informational" draft on mapping with WebRTC signaling (ROAP + other mechanism) to standard federation protocol like SIP, Jingle. draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00 focus on the interworking with deployed SIP devices. My proposal is to extend the draft to  accommodate other standard federation protocol and also consider the possible other deployment scenario. The intention of the draft is to provide the implementation guidelines for the WebRTC Federation.

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>Of Magnus Westerlund
>Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 4:00 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments
>
>WG,
>
>There has been a number of posts that makes arguments based on
>federation and the federation protocol. This is the protocol used
>between the webservers, called "Signalling path" in the trappzoid
>picture (from draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02) below:
>
>                +-----------+             +-----------+
>                |   Web     |             |   Web     |
>                |           |  Signalling |           |
>                |           |-------------|           |
>                |  Server   |   path      |  Server   |
>                |           |             |           |
>                +-----------+             +-----------+
>                     /                           \
>                    /                             \   Proprietary over
>                   /                               \  HTTP/Websockets
>                  /                                 \
>                 /  Proprietary over                 \
>                /   HTTP/Websockets                   \
>               /                                       \
>         +-----------+                           +-----------+
>         |JS/HTML/CSS|                           |JS/HTML/CSS|
>         +-----------+                           +-----------+
>         +-----------+                           +-----------+
>         |           |                           |           |
>         |           |                           |           |
>         |  Browser  | ------------------------- |  Browser  |
>         |           |          Media path       |           |
>         |           |                           |           |
>         +-----------+                           +-----------+
>
>                      Figure 2: Browser RTC Trapezoid
>
>
>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.
>
>Please consider that when writing arguments so that you don't
>misrepresent the current WG consensus or ignore the set of possibilities
>that currently are considered.
>
>If you don't like the WG consensus, then suggest to change it and see if
>you get support for it.
>
>Cheers
>
>Magnus Westerlund
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
>Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
>SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb