Re: [rtcweb] Some misunderstandings about <Usecase & architecture: Browser application with separate webserver & voipserver>

Nguyen Duong Tuan <hoang.su.tk@gmail.com> Sun, 28 August 2011 09:15 UTC

Return-Path: <hoang.su.tk@gmail.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 8647F21F8AF4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.266, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, 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 JqRnhu0A1Z0j for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:15:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20A921F8AF5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxi29 with SMTP id 29so4594524vxi.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZpjF5F3GS8kD0SoPhniqxw1ENTtzdE60BMTX9oSy+qM=; b=nD7OnaFJhD1fuL7O23Y3tnXFBJwjaLxJIbCaMPate7J6K88eWfd0h5HjNsgesZESSY /yD9CNAIoHlLuJvzeeVz1mGBkTbxOgByKoV0mz+O46/fYe+NQFjBMAKlp6aAAWpuBoUc +O+nJx7+9Ax/Srn3q8F/3vuabN2bbVWNHoeYk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.3.14 with SMTP id 14mr887993vcl.141.1314523023317; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.117.199 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Aug 2011 02:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5106436F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
References: <CAM_kxqci51=BnUFe-67Qs4eCxtGY50HDsRPrLjYULnBZJoH0Ow@mail.gmail.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5106436F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 18:17:03 +0900
Message-ID: <CAM_kxqc_R_NXQs-Os+JiTpxLOW38Rrt+JNqvjntbfv=j9xhvxQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nguyen Duong Tuan <hoang.su.tk@gmail.com>
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Some misunderstandings about <Usecase & architecture: Browser application with separate webserver & voipserver>
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: Sun, 28 Aug 2011 09:15:43 -0000

I'm sorry for late reply due to my vacation. Thanks Partha, I've just
begin with RTCWeb so there're quite a few thing I'm really no clear.

Thanks,
TuanND

2011/8/26 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>;:
> Hi TuanND,
>
> <snip>
> b) Browser application interacts with VoIP server (use HTTP)
>        browser<------>RTCweb server & SIP client (new GW)<------>SIP
> server
>
> New Gateway is outside the scope of RTCWeb and IETF which provides the
> opportunity for innovative way of building gateways but may leads to
> interop issue due to mapping between RTCWebserver & SIP client w.r.t
> mid-call services.
> </snip>
>
> The issue in case webserver acts as new RTCWEB & SIP GW for VoIP
> communication, there is a need of protocol mapping between the protocol
> used between browser & RTCWebserver (say RTCweb protocol) to SIP. In my
> experience with signaling protocol interworking, the interop between two
> vendors fails lot of times in mid-call services like Hold, resume,
> transfer and IETF BLISS WG is good example for such failures. My
> question was why RTCWeb was looking into that approach.
>
> From http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg00730.html
> mail thread, I understand that more discussion will occur in RTCWeb to
> clarify this doubt. Please let me know in case you need more
> explanation.
>
> Thanks
> Partha
>
> PS: I have changed my company recently
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf
>>Of Nguyen Duong Tuan
>>Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 7:40 AM
>>To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>>Subject: [rtcweb] Some misunderstandings about <Usecase & architecture:
>>Browser application with separate webserver & voipserver>
>>
>>Hello everyone,
>>
>>I read about Partha's question at RTCWeb mailing list at
>>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg00563.html
>>
>>He said that there's interoprating issues due to mapping between
>>RTCWebserver and SIP client w.r.t mid-call services in the
>>introduction of new gateway. Could anyone please explain more about
>>those issues? I have a little bit difficult to understand his
>>meanings.
>>
>>I couldn't send an email to Partha directly by partr@cisco.com, so I
>>decided to send to this email. Sorry for any inconvenience.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>TuanND
>>_______________________________________________
>>rtcweb mailing list
>>rtcweb@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>