Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments

"Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <> Fri, 11 November 2011 05:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD42A1F0C5F for <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:23:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.466
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.466 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nt3GpXyAcaX1 for <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:23:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC791F0C5A for <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAB5Nbb2014033; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:23:37 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 11 Nov 2011 00:20:36 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:50:45 +0530
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.1; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:50:44 +0530
Received: from ([fe80::8d0f:e4f9:a74f:3daf]) by ([fe80::80b9:dc60:caf7:7dfc%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 10:50:44 +0530
From: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <>
To: =?utf-8?B?ScOxYWtpIEJheiBDYXN0aWxsbw==?= <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments
Thread-Index: AQHMmhOSpaBQnqnn3Ea06PkOYAyRWJWbBmeQ//+xdQCAC+0LMA==
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 05:20:43 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2011 05:20:45.0479 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA1D4B70:01CCA031]
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 05:23:06 -0000


Please read inline


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iñaki Baz Castillo []
>Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 5:59 PM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Magnus Westerlund;
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments
>2011/11/3 Ravindran Parthasarathi <>om>:
>> I agree with the consensus that there is no need to mandate any
>signaling protocol as Federation protocol for WebRTC.
>Do you? I could find ~100 mails from you (including a draft and
>slides) in which you advocate for the opposite, and not just about the
>federation protocol, but also about mandating the in-the-wire protocol
>in browser to server communication.
<partha> I thought that you would have clear after looking at my slide 
on the last RTCWeb call wherein providing the standard mechanism vs low level 
mechanism. IMO, your Low (freedom) based level API and standard on-wire 
protocol are complementary because both serve two different purpose.
Freedom based API helps to build SIP over websocket kind of application or
Proprietary Facebook or Google based WebRTC mechanism.
But standard on-wire (say ROAP over JSON) helps folks not to look into
Protocol intricacies in the browser. It is very much possible to co-exist. 
I really don't where is your concern </partha>

>So I celebrate you agree now with the consensus :)
<partha> Good that we have some common understanding after the long discussion
>> Let Federation protocol be SIP or Jingle or any signaling protocol for
>that matter.
>> I'm interested in asking the folks whether WG will be interested to
>see the "informational" draft on mapping with WebRTC signaling (ROAP +
>other mechanism) to standard federation protocol like SIP, Jingle.
>draft-kaplan-rtcweb-sip-interworking-requirements-00 focus on the
>interworking with deployed SIP devices. My proposal is to extend the
>draft to  accommodate other standard federation protocol and also
>consider the possible other deployment scenario. The intention of the
>draft is to provide the implementation guidelines for the WebRTC
>IMHO given that the consensus is not to define browser-to-server nor
>server-to-server protocols, we should focus on remaining items rather
>than spending time in informational topics. Or at least, I would wait
>until remaining items are more defined (it could help in the document
>you have in mind). Of course you are free to write it whenever you
>Iñaki Baz Castillo