Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Thu, 10 November 2011 16:33 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 C46F421F87D6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:33:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 ml-azwRMM6aq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:33:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D2421F8672 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:33:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wwh12 with SMTP id 12so1898785wwh.13 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:33:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.65.36 with SMTP id u4mr13958051vds.58.1320942797147; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:33:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.107.206 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:32:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A992@inba-mail01.sonusnet.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> <CALiegfkCQv75=ACNB2vK1Mi=S4Q=nastG_LUgd1ohzSeKmBVtQ@mail.gmail.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A992@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:32:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CALiegfkZvViEmeOBpE00XyATLfRKs4EVii6UzuBFfW3a7KkNDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.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: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:33:19 -0000

2011/11/10 Ravindran, Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>om>:
> 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
<ibc@aliax.net>