Re: [rtcweb] SIP Glare - Re: Minimal SDP negotiation mechanism

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Thu, 22 September 2011 19:48 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 15C5A21F8B9E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:48:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.948
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.649, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 cgYO1OanIWwz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E51721F8B5F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:48:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=975; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1316721075; x=1317930675; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=4HHYkih41Cipyg4/ENXt1AnwJS/BBUidSpTWm0BJcJY=; b=CIUoOxUoGiYNKtL5YsjLOkq6kKzkZdntjKTEZSuGXTFodiZGj/EGCy+P kEAwYa5Tgdh3QlB8OgAY4i5sKCip0aAVtRxb59EDsLJfm4+UUGjkmdrSi r60eGGJjvLsG4ACOTTBQfWuZgBKOa8eO2kSoGsFcnFS8Ly4tnXpbCzTee E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAEaRe06rRDoH/2dsb2JhbABCqAJ4gVMBAQEBAgESAWYFCwtGVwYTGweHVpcYAZ4shh1gBIdxi1+FH4wv
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,425,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="3743717"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Sep 2011 19:51:15 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (sjc-fluffy-8914.cisco.com [10.20.249.165]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8MJpDT3010674; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:51:13 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfkWv9wPj8N3FLT2UpksHARp7qdSXTJVTSEyBpL7pdujcg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:51:13 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <18FFF339-E7EB-4EEB-BCD8-E6728A56A24A@cisco.com>
References: <4E777500.5030201@alvestrand.no> <4E78940C.4040405@ericsson.com> <ED2DB00E-A64B-405F-96AC-2269258F6FFC@cisco.com> <4E799ECC.8030306@ericsson.com> <DB6B2796-9762-47CA-9A45-62476146DF04@cisco.com> <4E7B7272.7020204@alvestrand.no> <CALiegfkWv9wPj8N3FLT2UpksHARp7qdSXTJVTSEyBpL7pdujcg@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?I=F1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SIP Glare - Re: Minimal SDP negotiation mechanism
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: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:48:43 -0000

On Sep 22, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:

> 2011/9/22 Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>no>:
>> Magnus' analysis worries me a bit, because it seems to assume specific
>> functionality in the gateway (tracking of state and ability to generate SIP
>> messages depending on state).
>> It seems reasonably simple to build a gateway, but we quickly get to the
>> point where we have to write standards for the gateway function .... which
>> could lead us down rather deep ratholes.
> 
> Are we assuming that a media gateway will be required for RTP/media
> communication between a WebRTC client (web browser) and a SIP node?
> If such decision is taken IMHO it's sad.

My take is that most people want to make sure that a translator between SIP and web stuff would only need to look at signalling - it would not touch the media. I'm working on the asumption that is what any solution will look like. So, no media GW.