Re: [rtcweb] Gateways

That is not what I was suggesting.

I still believe that the gateways draft should be integrated into the overview, but independent of that it does need to quantify in some what what a webrtc gateway should conform to.

So I believe that there should be a structure similar to that given in sections 4 through 9 of the overview document. The statements made there will obviously not be quite so mandating as those for the endpoints, but for example it should be perfectly reasonable to state that for example:

"If the WebRTC gateway terminates RTP, then the WebRTC gateway MUST implement draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage."

I would like it to focus on thet parts of the protocol suite that the gateway is likely to terminate.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of 
> Martin Thomson
> Sent: 11 November 2014 03:27
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: [rtcweb] Gateways
> 
> I'm not sure that this is the comment Ted was looking for here.
> 
> I don't think that we need this document, as Keith observes, 
> a short note in -overview suffices:
> 
> A gateway is a webrtc endpoint or webrtc-compatible endpoint 
> that forwards stuff (media or data) to other endpoints.  This 
> is useful.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 