[rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser application with separate webserver & voipserver

"Parthasarathi R (partr)" <partr@cisco.com> Sat, 06 August 2011 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <partr@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 731FC21F86D8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 06:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.182
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.182 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.416, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PmXzcNzZ8SRy for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 06:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E6D21F86C3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 06:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=partr@cisco.com; l=4402; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1312636760; x=1313846360; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:from:to; bh=8eScRGeFyVnlAfe1a+YBn4a5KFygExiPCnzmGZqDYf0=; b=Z0Cj0C9yjFUjTfziog+FVBCL/zlWxjDkZntgUSwAQaEsJBtBbImh8lUm Jz6jpCA2QcKMSeEDDH84shwIM4d91ng2I12qZtPThTHUdSzcaHYa8kbiu ZxcUCKOY+mHmL2D1r002U6cgB8u7TAiqEltwCYgIa3ow/TkwJWAXxd7DG g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmMHAG0+PU5Io8UQ/2dsb2JhbABCmGOPB3eBQgEBAxIBCRRbAQwOEAYYB0gPAQQLEBqmd4EjAZ4ehWdfBIdakDmLXw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.67,328,1309737600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="107479027"
Received: from bgl-core-1.cisco.com ([72.163.197.16]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Aug 2011 13:19:14 +0000
Received: from xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com (xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com [72.163.129.202]) by bgl-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p76DJCRV014289 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 13:19:14 GMT
Received: from xmb-bgl-411.cisco.com ([72.163.129.207]) by xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 6 Aug 2011 18:49:13 +0530
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC543B.6F0463BA"
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 18:49:11 +0530
Message-ID: <A11921905DA1564D9BCF64A6430A62390608EC13@XMB-BGL-411.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Usecase & architecture: Browser application with separate webserver & voipserver
Thread-Index: AcxUO23tebf8KfT6SeOn8rgS2Nfecg==
From: "Parthasarathi R (partr)" <partr@cisco.com>
To: <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Aug 2011 13:19:13.0082 (UTC) FILETIME=[6F1C21A0:01CC543B]
Subject: [rtcweb] 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: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 13:19:00 -0000

Hi all,
 
browser application should have the mechanism by which it interacts with
voipserver directly instead of depend on the webserver. This usecase
provides the flexibility for the webdeveloper to focus on the
webdevelopment and use the existing voipservers for voip services by
just invoking the API.
 
I'm not very sure whether this usecase is same as sec 4.3.1 as there is
no protocol architecture shown:
 
         browser--------webservers---web services
         (Javascript)
             |
             ----------------voipservers-----VoIP entity (browser)
 
This architecture facilites for webdeveloper to choose the different
vendor for webservers & voipservers. It is possible for webserver &
voipserver co-located but not mandatory. This architecture is slightly
different from draft-rosenberg-rtcweb-framework-00 fig 2 (Browser RTC
Trapezoid).  Please let me know your opinion on the same.
 
Thanks
Partha