Re: [rtcweb] draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00

Hadriel,

It is nice to see the discussion on Federation protocol for WebRTC
(RTCWeb). I agree that the high level architecture will be same as you
projected in your draft. Even in case ROAP is accepted as standard
interface, there will be no change in the architecture. But I'm not in
agreement with the requirement in Sec 6 and Sec 7 of your document
because it influence the specific implementation. 

I'll take A1-1 requirement of SIP forking wherein it is very much
possible for RTCWEB-SIP gateway to hide the forking functionality from
browser and it is normal B2BUA (SBC in market term) functionality in SIP
wherein originating SIP UA does not support forking properly. IOW,
please don't add requirement in RTCWeb for the sake SIP interop and it
is possible to design the better gateway if required. I'm looking for
standard RTCWeb signaling protocol like ROAP by which better solution
for RTCWeb-federation gateway is documented in IETF.

Also, I'm interested in hearing about other RTCWeb federation protocol
like Jingle before doing the deep-dive into the requirement because my
gut feeling is that we will end-up in multiple federation protocol
rather than single.

Thanks
Partha 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf
>Of Hadriel Kaplan
>Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 5:00 AM
>To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: [rtcweb] draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00
>
>Howdy,
>I've submitted a draft listing some use-cases and resulting
requirements
>for interworking from RTCWeb (or "WebRTC" as the case may be), to
>deployed SIP domains/devices.
>The draft also discusses the functions which may be required in an
>interworking device, should some of the requirements not be met.
>
>The purpose of the draft is to put pen-to-paper on some of the emails
>flying around the past month, to stimulate discussion, and hopefully
>drive consensus decisions sooner rather than later.
>Info below.
>
>Note that most of the doc is about media-plane issues, rather than
about
>SIP/SDP as I expect Cullen's soon-to-be-announced ROAP
signaling-gateway
>draft will be.
>
>-hadriel
>
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-
>requirements-00.txt
>> Date: October 24, 2011 6:42:57 PM EDT
>> To: <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
>> Reply-To: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>directories.
>>
>> 	Title           : Requirements for Interworking RTCWeb with
>Current SIP Deployments
>> 	Author(s)       : Hadriel Kaplan
>> 	Filename        : draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-
>requirements-00.txt
>> 	Pages           : 22
>> 	Date            : 2011-10-24
>>
>>   The IETF RTCWEB WG has been discussing how to interwork with
>>   deployed SIP equipment and domains.  Doing so may require an
>>   Interworking Function middlebox in the media-plane.  This document
>>   lists some RTCWeb-to-SIP use-cases, the RTCWeb requirements to
>>   support such, and the complexity involved in interworking if the
>>   requirements cannot be met.
>>
>>
>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-
>interworking-requirements-00.txt
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-
>interworking-requirements-00.txt
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb