Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Forking usecase [was RE: draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00]

Hi,

In my opinion, interworking with SIP is itself such use-case :)

I think the question is whether a browser should be able to handle parallel forking, or if serial forking is enough.

In my opinion serial forking is enough, ie the JS app (or, if you want, a gateway) informs the browser about the currently active remote media parameters.

Regards,

Christer

________________________________________
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ravindran Parthasarathi [pravindran@sonusnet.com]
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 10:43 PM
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Forking usecase [was RE:   draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00]

Inaki,

ISTM, SIP specific functionality is pushed into WebRTC client unnecessary without well-defined WebRTC usecase.

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:ibc@aliax.net]
>Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 1:04 AM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Harald Alvestrand; rtcweb@ietf.org; Hadriel Kaplan
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RTCWeb Forking usecase [was RE: draft-kaplan-
>rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00]
>
>2011/10/28 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>:
>> As I mentioned earlier, SIP (serial) forking requirement shall be met
>by gateway signaling and no extra requirement for browser.
>
>Do it in your gateway if you want, but don't try to mandate it please.
>As I also mentioned earlier, some of us are willing to handle forking
>in the WebRTC client (at JavaScript level) and that is perfectly
>possible.
>
>Regards.
>
>--
>Iñaki Baz Castillo
><ibc@aliax.net>
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb