IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecase & architecture: Browser application with separate webserver & voipserver)

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Wed, 07 September 2011 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 0E60C21F8B62 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 07:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.26
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.661, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 JjRDiv7dBUda for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 07:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D9B321F8B55 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 07:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=1068; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1315407653; x=1316617253; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=WSU7xmHbnJRJTef25mh4HRagdd/+Cb97ifKXlbvHPQ8=; b=VRN4jNkWicE/2TJyWMi37EivgKzTWx9bvU0ri4RTR3sTLAUUbrk/TAcd SV8w9ZXjLNDaxIb5rUEnmeSnlF52q92eTsxleavolF3yAciXl/KrRSwEM hp9Cck339pGrl8Rb0oCbRDHrzmapmhus6pQZVoMvRxIDkX4yS1aa2K1Kf 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAIKGZ06rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABDp214gUYBAQEBAgESASc/BQsLEgYjC0kOBjWHU5huAZ5LhgtgBIdsi0aFEowi
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,345,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="679589"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2011 15:00:53 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (sjc-fluffy-8914.cisco.com [10.20.249.165]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p87F0qNM031361; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:00:52 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E677D4F.8050105@skype.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 09:00:52 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BCB6B78C-52A4-4525-8C37-AEE936821675@cisco.com>
References: <CAM_kxqci51=BnUFe-67Qs4eCxtGY50HDsRPrLjYULnBZJoH0Ow@mail.gmail.com>, <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5106436F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <BLU152-W72696F07F16816B1B267593100@phx.gbl> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51064707@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E659576.1000301@skype.net> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0868@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E666785.7040409@skype.net> <4E67513C.3030600@alvestrand.no> <4E677CB8.40203@skype.net> <4E677D4F.8050105@skype.net>
To: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecase & architecture: Browser application with separate webserver & voipserver)
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, 07 Sep 2011 14:59:04 -0000

On Sep 7, 2011, at 8:18 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> On 9/7/2011 7:16 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> 
>> Whereas with WebRTC implemented *without SIP*, it is fairly easy to build a web app that runs on multiple browsers from multiple vendors and implements this.
>> 
>> So this type of ability to innovate and implement applications without going through the standards process is why we *definitely* don't want SIP baked in to the browser.
> 
> And note that this is directly parallel to the "innovate like Gmail" discussion. It is trivial for Gmail to change the look and feel and behavior of the "delete" button to implement an email paradigm of "keep everything, search to find it" (and have it work the same way no matter who the browser vendor is)... but this wouldn't have been the case if Gmail were forced to use the browser's built-in IMAP implementation.

again - as I have mentioned before, that a silly analogy. I know it is rhetorically nice but seriously, why do you think it is a reasonable parallel?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email