Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

I don't understand the meaning of the sentence 

 This part is outside the scope of the RTCWEB standards
  suite.

I think we need to construct a solution that can work if domains want to federate with SIP - therefore this should be one our use cases. However, I think domain should be free to choose whatever they want to federate - it just needs to be possible to federate. I'd like to see this clarified. 


On Nov 3, 2011, at 4:29 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> 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