Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC

"Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Wed, 09 November 2011 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.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 99D4621F8B7E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:48:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 oCC3jgWyhQ00 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:48:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A7E21F8B76 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 05:48:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sonusmail07.sonusnet.com (sonusmail07.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.157]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pA9Dmjam020470; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 08:48:45 -0500
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail07.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 9 Nov 2011 08:47:41 -0500
Received: from INBA-HUB01.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.86]) by sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 9 Nov 2011 19:17:49 +0530
Received: from INBA-MAIL01.sonusnet.com ([fe80::8d0f:e4f9:a74f:3daf]) by inba-hub01.sonusnet.com ([fe80::5cbc:2823:f6cc:9ce7%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 19:17:48 +0530
From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk>, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
Thread-Index: AQHMm7/XxS9yQix74UmCewMPtvNQWZWe2WiAgABcZwCAAFnsgIAA1PQAgACv/gCAAAVogIAAGdwAgAHTzND//7JMAIAAEPMAgAESTSCAAAmSMIAALVkAgAAFPXD//9h2gIAAFyMAgAARBYCAAA9VgIAAA0KAgAAKlgCAAFxwIA==
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 13:47:49 +0000
Message-ID: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A541@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
References: <CALiegfkVNVAs_MyU_-4koA4zRwSn1-FwLjY9g_oZVkhi9rSK5Q@mail.gmail.com> <8A61D801-D14D-408B-9875-63C37D0CC166@acmepacket.com> <CABw3bnPE=OY_h5bM7GA6wgrXiOBL8P4J0kw1jLv-GSpHAbg=Cg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNqdkh8u=gwOvKfDCQA7rXdAyQkfaM1r2Sx10787btP6A@mail.gmail.com> <B10FEFF6-0ADC-4DB1-83BB-50A11C65EC35@acmepacket.com> <CABcZeBNSXtim_VqzqAd8Z-u4zWSjaYmsVZPN=7sDYkJsgtRAHA@mail.gmail.com> <4EB7E6A5.70209@alvestrand.no> <F8003BA9-BCD8-4F02-B514-8B883FF90F91@acmepacket.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349D81@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <845C03B2-1975-4145-8F52-8CEC9E360AF3@edvina.net> <5454E693-5C34-4C77-BA07-2A9EE9EE4AFD@cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C01349FFE@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3B7FD@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A105@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <1F2A2C70609D9E41844A2126145FC09804691DA2@HKGMBOXPRD22.polycom.com> <CALiegfmf59jb4asUu9LA6YY_aMtKEnM1Wy34KbuLEn3_h1xBXA@mail.gmail.com> <1D062974A4845E4D8A343C653804920206D3B9C1@XMB-BGL-414.cisco.com> <CALiegfmM1PB=VAQjfh4rW3-3C8aumHdWy9nZxD0-BWBq9Kq_tg@mail.gmail.com> <CABRok6nha3Ut5A1c1k=WUYxrn6kxDD=P2no6EFaf4=Uzdbbpwg@mail.gmail.com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE22186AAFD@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <CABRok6mbEBuKEq5rFOsEXn=J4H3jrgpqFeTwNTcxLj_Pbm0tjg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABRok6mbEBuKEq5rFOsEXn=J4H3jrgpqFeTwNTcxLj_Pbm0tjg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.70.54.164]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0134A541inbamail01sonus_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Nov 2011 13:47:49.0224 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B40DE80:01CC9EE6]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC
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: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 13:48:12 -0000

Neil,

Please read inline

Thanks
Partha

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Neil Stratford
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 7:13 PM
To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Let's define the purpose of WebRTC

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:04 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:
If you want to be in the world of telecommunications you carry a legacy baggage.

Only at the point you want to interop with that legacy world. Skype did a pretty good job of avoiding the legacy and changing users expectations of telecommunications.
<partha> AFAIK, Skype still interop with legacy telephone devices using SIP </partha>

Your proposal to provide a gateway is just one way of dealing with the legacy baggage. It does however carry the downside that you need a player to provide such gateways in support of interworking to the legacy.

Suppose I make an emergency call to a PSAP. The legacy baggage here is that unless someone volunteers to provide all those PSAPs worldwide with new kit, the majority will remain connected to the PSTN (i.e. not even SIP). I need a guarantee that someone out there will provide a gateway. Which player provides that in your business model.

If there is a market for interop (which there clearly is) then multiple vendors will no doubt offer gateways. I'm just concerned that we are talking about imposing legacy requirements on the core API, when WebRTC seems an ideal opportunity to break away from that legacy.
<partha>  In case core API is not defined for it, I agree with Keith that RTCWeb has to explain or provide the guideline for the server/gateway role and IMO, it is discussed as federation till now in RTCWeb.  </partha>

Neil