[rtcweb] Gateway need and usecase [was RE: Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol]

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Wed, 19 October 2011 03:32 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134DB1F0C73 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:32:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.725
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.725 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.426, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b3MTzVgC9SJt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755F41F0C6F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail04.sonusnet.com (sonusmail04.sonusnet.com []) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9J3WgkT031239; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:32:42 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([]) by sonusmail04.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:32:08 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:02:01 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159A00@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegfm_FN5hTyPupjOHLPwX--YPV-gewusvi9+JtV3i1ONpJw@mail.gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Gateway need and usecase [was RE: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol]
Thread-Index: AcyNcsGc1/FirgngTX6nJ9FUa542OQAmqppg
References: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1367@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E8AC222.4050308@alvestrand.no><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14CE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CALiegf=ejF2kUC1m=74o9eprF1M8wYtgE-Crwa1x14rzDOf+gQ@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F14FD@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><393F1888-F834-4DAE-B6B1-1C5D35EE3292@phonefromhere.com><CAOg=WDcC9t2KhQUg0gDJ60gO_2mNyMv9HKt=otCdPDfj4TnoTg@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F152B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CABRok6mM7TfbLgGhoQvdRh1Kwoi5BhRweLcqWg7VZOFnaa8VOw@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1532@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CABRok6n33QK0Si1Y0kT7+U0zgAWsJ4d5GENK_KL-JPx5a4erYg@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF511598EE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><665A16AB-AAD8-42B3-AC17-7E629EA2DE35@phonefromhere.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5115992E@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><CALiegfmrncjsLVSiWk0tEgzwB00YaBGiqj0SDf9JTm9p1ZNoVA@mail.gmail.com><0950F0E1-6E4B-407F-9563- 654AFE79 F64B@ag-proj ects.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51159994@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegfm_FN5hTyPupjOHLPwX--YPV-gewusvi9+JtV3i1ONpJw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Oct 2011 03:32:08.0288 (UTC) FILETIME=[AE109E00:01CC8E0F]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: [rtcweb] Gateway need and usecase [was RE: Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling protocol]
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, 19 Oct 2011 03:32:15 -0000


It is not that I'm interested in RTCWeb gateway but it is the best known solution currently. Please look into my earlier mail thread (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg01058.html) for asking not to have gateways and the issues involved in developing gateways. But in case two protocols like SIP, websocket are started using for the signaling within the same session, the interop is possible only with gateways or tunneling wherein I prefer gateway.  

I agree that the primary focus of this WG is to browser-to-browser without federation in mind. But the power of collaboration using RTCWeb will be realized in case federation protocol are used. For example, search for the keyword in Google from the Android browser, go to the website, click in the website leads to the call in the call center of the website company without involving any PSTN network. Here, website of the company acts as a service provider for the company and reduce the PSTN/SIP trunk cost drastically.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:ibc@aliax.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:19 PM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé; rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review request for RTCWeb standard signaling
>2011/10/18 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>:
>> Saul,
>> One minor correction in your mail: I have mentioned "SIP over
>websocket" is an overkill and not SIP.
>Ravindran, please forget "SIP over WebSocket". I've never proposed it
>to be a default RTCweb signaling protocol, not at all, so if you don't
>like it just don't use it.
>BTW what I understand given your insistent proposal is that you need
>the RTCweb signaling protocol (messages in-the-wire) to be an IETF
>standard so you get a market for building and selling gateway boxes
>between such "IETF-RTCweb-Protocol" and other IETF standard protocols
>(as SIP). It's clear that you like gateways and you want gateways.
>Said that I apologize to this WG for some of my mails yesterday. It
>won't happen again.
>Iñaki Baz Castillo