Re: [rtcweb] draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Tue, 25 October 2011 06:11 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.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 EF65E21F8AA9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.722
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 L+4EpPhqMY-Z for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F204721F8AA8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 23:11:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail04.sonusnet.com (sonusmail04.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.98]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9P6BbRj008162; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:11:37 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail04.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:06:54 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:36:52 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159C4A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00
thread-index: AQHMkqTg+ZnmTyb6QUGCzFAZ7bjkHJWMed4wgAAYQSA=
References: <20111024224257.28459.65554.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6EB8679A-13D5-4AD7-97F2-BC35FC0966F0@acmepacket.com>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>, rtcweb@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Oct 2011 06:06:54.0214 (UTC) FILETIME=[4B62FA60:01CC92DC]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00
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: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 06:11:06 -0000

Just adding one more point regarding architecture, Media plane
interworking function is an optional element for the next generation
(release) of SIP devices wherein Media agent of SIP UA will be able to
interop directly with browser media plane without intermediate
media-plane gateways.

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 10:27 AM
>To: 'Hadriel Kaplan'; rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: [rtcweb]
draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-
>00
>
>Hadriel,
>
>It is nice to see the discussion on Federation protocol for WebRTC
>(RTCWeb). I agree that the high level architecture will be same as you
>projected in your draft. Even in case ROAP is accepted as standard
>interface, there will be no change in the architecture. But I'm not in
>agreement with the requirement in Sec 6 and Sec 7 of your document
>because it influence the specific implementation.
>
>I'll take A1-1 requirement of SIP forking wherein it is very much
>possible for RTCWEB-SIP gateway to hide the forking functionality from
>browser and it is normal B2BUA (SBC in market term) functionality in
SIP
>wherein originating SIP UA does not support forking properly. IOW,
>please don't add requirement in RTCWeb for the sake SIP interop and it
>is possible to design the better gateway if required. I'm looking for
>standard RTCWeb signaling protocol like ROAP by which better solution
>for RTCWeb-federation gateway is documented in IETF.
>
>Also, I'm interested in hearing about other RTCWeb federation protocol
>like Jingle before doing the deep-dive into the requirement because my
>gut feeling is that we will end-up in multiple federation protocol
>rather than single.
>
>Thanks
>Partha
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
>Behalf
>>Of Hadriel Kaplan
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 5:00 AM
>>To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>>Subject: [rtcweb] draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00
>>
>>Howdy,
>>I've submitted a draft listing some use-cases and resulting
>requirements
>>for interworking from RTCWeb (or "WebRTC" as the case may be), to
>>deployed SIP domains/devices.
>>The draft also discusses the functions which may be required in an
>>interworking device, should some of the requirements not be met.
>>
>>The purpose of the draft is to put pen-to-paper on some of the emails
>>flying around the past month, to stimulate discussion, and hopefully
>>drive consensus decisions sooner rather than later.
>>Info below.
>>
>>Note that most of the doc is about media-plane issues, rather than
>about
>>SIP/SDP as I expect Cullen's soon-to-be-announced ROAP signaling-
>gateway
>>draft will be.
>>
>>-hadriel
>>
>>
>>Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-
>>requirements-00.txt
>>> Date: October 24, 2011 6:42:57 PM EDT
>>> To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
>>> Reply-To: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>directories.
>>>
>>> 	Title           : Requirements for Interworking RTCWeb with
>>Current SIP Deployments
>>> 	Author(s)       : Hadriel Kaplan
>>> 	Filename        : draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-
>>requirements-00.txt
>>> 	Pages           : 22
>>> 	Date            : 2011-10-24
>>>
>>>   The IETF RTCWEB WG has been discussing how to interwork with
>>>   deployed SIP equipment and domains.  Doing so may require an
>>>   Interworking Function middlebox in the media-plane.  This document
>>>   lists some RTCWeb-to-SIP use-cases, the RTCWeb requirements to
>>>   support such, and the complexity involved in interworking if the
>>>   requirements cannot be met.
>>>
>>>
>>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-
>>interworking-requirements-00.txt
>>>
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>
>>> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-
>>interworking-requirements-00.txt
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>rtcweb mailing list
>>rtcweb@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb