IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 09 November 2011 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 C390711E808B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:38:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.637
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.637 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 RiMQ-jibhNCP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:38:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC59211E8083 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:38:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so2083137vws.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:38:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.113.227 with SMTP id jb3mr6952238vdb.15.1320867488063; Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:38:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.107.206 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 11:37:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAJUQMiv3EyT3MzAUCzfXusG2Md-DnkA0sa3Hnx5CGVdh919ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4EB26D22.5090000@ericsson.com> <FA65A239-CC86-4AC3-8A5A-91B7701C3FB5@cisco.com> <BLU152-W488BAA56546BEA4D42B4C893DF0@phx.gbl> <4EBA741A.1010307@alvestrand.no> <CAAJUQMiv3EyT3MzAUCzfXusG2Md-DnkA0sa3Hnx5CGVdh919ag@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:37:47 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfkCQv75=ACNB2vK1Mi=S4Q=nastG_LUgd1ohzSeKmBVtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wolfgang Beck <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments
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, 09 Nov 2011 19:38:13 -0000

2011/11/9 Wolfgang Beck <wolfgang.beck01@googlemail.com>:
> This has happened with SIP. As most of the interconnection is done
> through the PSTN, we don't see many exciting new SIP applications in
> wide use.

I don't fully understand why some SIP folks try to "export" the SIP
trapezoid model to WebRTC taking into account that such trapezoid has
never succeeded in pure SIP networks.

Anyhow, reading the last mails in this thread... what are we
discussing about? IHMO all of us (at least in this thread) agree on
the fact that mandating/defining a server-to-server interconnection
model is a no-go. Is it just about the exact text for the draft? It's
easy, just say "two WebRTC sites can federate by using any mechanism
they desire for such interconnection. It could be pure SIP, XMPP or
whatever protocol/mechanism they agree."

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email