Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2011/11/10 Ravindran, Parthasarathi <[e-mail]>:
> It is a bad situation to implement "n" protocols in Gateways for federation
> as there is no standard to refer. Atleast in case of IP telephony, there is
> a convergence that SIP will be used as a de-facto protocol (no H.323/Megaco).
> It is really tough to manage in case there is no guidelines for RTCWeb server.

Hi Ravindran, WebRTC is not SIP nor a protocol to be mapped to SIP.
It's something different which "could" offer features similar to SIP
or a really different experience.

A WebRTC scenario could offer just multiconference calls (let's say a
poker game in which every participant talk and listens to all the
participants), or could offer just video calls, or just audio. This is
not about legacy telephony anymore, so there is no chance to make a
"guideline" for interoperability between WebRTC and SIP. Of course
some WebRTC scenarios could offer capabilities like VoIP so
interoperability with SIP networks would make sense, but we should not
assume that this is the main purpose of WebRTC.

IMHO we should stop talking about SIP in this WG.



> As I earlier mentioned, there is no need to mandate any specific protocol but
> Guidelines is important. Also, I agree with your earlier mail that Federation work
> item may not require to be completed in the normal WebRTC time-to-market manner.

I agree. The document you propose could be useful for some scenarios,
sure, but it should not make the WG to spent time on it for now. First
priority is to define WebRTC regardless federation with other specific
networks.


Regards.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>