[rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Thu, 03 November 2011 10:29 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 10AEB11E80DD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 03:29:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.577
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 5OdJXBMf4PdP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 03:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359DD11E80AC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 03:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7cb2ae000001bd8-70-4eb26d23585f
Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EA.DF.07128.32D62BE4; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 11:29:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.85) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 11:29:55 +0100
Message-ID: <4EB26D22.5090000@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:29:54 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [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, 03 Nov 2011 10:29:58 -0000

WG,

There has been a number of posts that makes arguments based on
federation and the federation protocol. This is the protocol used
between the webservers, called "Signalling path" in the trappzoid
picture (from draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-02) below:

                +-----------+             +-----------+
                |   Web     |             |   Web     |
                |           |  Signalling |           |
                |           |-------------|           |
                |  Server   |   path      |  Server   |
                |           |             |           |
                +-----------+             +-----------+
                     /                           \
                    /                             \   Proprietary over
                   /                               \  HTTP/Websockets
                  /                                 \
                 /  Proprietary over                 \
                /   HTTP/Websockets                   \
               /                                       \
         +-----------+                           +-----------+
         |JS/HTML/CSS|                           |JS/HTML/CSS|
         +-----------+                           +-----------+
         +-----------+                           +-----------+
         |           |                           |           |
         |           |                           |           |
         |  Browser  | ------------------------- |  Browser  |
         |           |          Media path       |           |
         |           |                           |           |
         +-----------+                           +-----------+

                      Figure 2: Browser RTC Trapezoid


Please consider that the current WG consensus is well captured in the
overview draft:

   If the two Web servers are operated by different entities, the
   signalling path needs to be agreed upon, either by standardization or
   by other means of agreement; for example, both servers might
   implement SIP, and the servers would talk SIP to each other, and each
   would translate between the SIP protocol and their proprietary
   representation for sending to their application running in the
   browser.  This part is outside the scope of the RTCWEB standars
   suite.

So, it may be SIP, it doesn't need to be SIP. The important from the
WG's perspective is that is a possible deployment model we intended to
support. It is not the only deployment model. We don't define what is
used on the signalling path and there is freedom here.

Please consider that when writing arguments so that you don't
misrepresent the current WG consensus or ignore the set of possibilities
that currently are considered.

If you don't like the WG consensus, then suggest to change it and see if
you get support for it.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------