Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Wed, 28 September 2011 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 CBF9821F8DA2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 07:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.069
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.470, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 spbsqbsjYzKH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 07:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16AA321F8DA1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 07:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=1419; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1317220999; x=1318430599; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=wPHP/BZZTBTapSBbGlcLYmeVTww6UagAT6zrf+FXzyI=; b=iWHcfwB59nvOrggt3oj1b2l66VDlSF4hN5yfthRqzCrJQQlEK6a0acea nSMab9zyXIqVVOsuq2quXaxQVft+OP7hiOcPGw35NVzdUf/ptUEiGTTmX QCFdDK4JTnMHbj+lmnnvs7kt9+xFL38KIGpc1zYHWq9PoM8rp+NaC279R E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAFIyg06rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABBqAl4gVMBAQEBAgESASc/EAtGVwY1h1aaDwGOLI94hithBIdyi2OFIowy
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,456,1312156800"; d="scan'208";a="4780377"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2011 14:43:19 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (sjc-fluffy-8914.cisco.com [10.20.249.165]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8SEhIgN017595; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:43:19 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W62B7F2AC3F0D5B6E277CB993F00@phx.gbl>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:43:18 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9790CEA7-59E6-4E14-9D5D-F9669E95036E@cisco.com>
References: <CAD5OKxtNjmWBz92bRuxka7e-BUpTPgVUvr3ahJGpmZ-U5nuPbQ@mail.gmail.com><CAD6AjGSmz5T_F+SK2EoBQm6T-iRKp7dd4j8ZAF5JKdbbyomZQA@mail.gmail.com><CALiegfmO54HC+g9L_DYn4jtXAAbLEvS++qxKa6TNrLDREs9SeA@mail.gmail.com><4E80984A.903@skype.net><CALiegfmyvTb57WVooKryS-ubfcg+w5gZ+zfO1zzBLn3609AzaA@mail.gmail.com>, <4E809EE6.2050702@skype.net>, <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1087@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <BLU152-W62B7F2AC3F0D5B6E277CB993F00@phx.gbl>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls
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, 28 Sep 2011 14:40:31 -0000

On Sep 26, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> 
> > And "interoperability with SIP-PSTN providers" is only relevant if you
> > are trying to turn the browser into another phone. We have enough
> > phones. What we don't have are new real-time communication experiences
> > that can only be created within this environment.
> 
> [BA] I think you may be on to something here.  POTS lines are dropping so rapidly
> that wireline service won't even exist in some countries within a few years.  While
> PSTN interop may have been a key scenario in the early days of SIP, I have serious
> doubts as to how much attention we should pay to this in RTCWEB.  Ability to
> make a call to an E.164 number?  Probably.  Support for every potential corner
> case?  Not necessarily. 

I wish I could agree but I think we have a long, long, way to go here. I will point out that the only way Microsoft can phone Cisco is over the PSTN and that is two of the most pro VoIP companies in the world. Thought I agree with rate of land lines is dropping in some countries, the rate of  what VoIP reaches via the PSTN, which is land lines + mobile phones, is growing in every country I have stats for. Now of course, I'd love to see the PSTN replaced with something better but I think it is highly unrealistic to think that is going to happen in less than 10 years.