Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments
Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 09 November 2011 17:27 UTC
Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 8BF9C21F8AF9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:27:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 j1mTy4BlPTCt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:27:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F039D21F8A7E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 09:27:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D037939E149 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:26:59 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5I66G4u1rh+r for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:26:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hta-dell.lul.corp.google.com (62-20-124-50.customer.telia.com [62.20.124.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 261F139E04C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:26:32 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <4EBAB7C7.4030702@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:26:31 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <4EB26D22.5090000@ericsson.com> <FA65A239-CC86-4AC3-8A5A-91B7701C3FB5@cisco.com> <BLU152-W488BAA56546BEA4D42B4C893DF0@phx.gbl> <4EBA741A.1010307@alvestrand.no> <CAAJUQMiv3EyT3MzAUCzfXusG2Md-DnkA0sa3Hnx5CGVdh919ag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAJUQMiv3EyT3MzAUCzfXusG2Md-DnkA0sa3Hnx5CGVdh919ag@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments
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, 09 Nov 2011 17:27:02 -0000
On 11/09/2011 05:55 PM, Wolfgang Beck wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Harald Alvestrand<harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: >> [on Bernard's comments] >> can we simply say "Existing protocols (for example SIP or XMPP) could be >> used between the servers"? >> >> between servers, while either a standards-based or proprietary protocol >> could be used between the browser and the web server. > My concern about this trapezoid style connection of servers is this: > in order to limit the number protocol translators, > RTCWEB providers will use only a small number of server-to-server > protocols, most likely SIP and Jingle. > > This will inevitably have influence on the JS client / server > protocol design: why bother with innovative features that > don't translate well to SIP and Jingle anyway? Why not just do > Jingle/SIP over Websocket? And the opportunity of RTCWEB will be gone. > We will just see browser-based SIP, Jingle clients with fancy CSS > themes. Please!!!!!!!!!!! The trapezoid is ONE possible deployment scenario. As the overview document says: A commonly imagined model of deployment is the one depicted below. It is neither the only possible one nor even a recommended one. It is just commonly imagined. If you want innovative applications ..... go innovate, and come back when you know *exactly why* something in the specs gets in your way! > This has happened with SIP. As most of the interconnection is done > through the PSTN, we don't see many exciting new SIP applications in > wide use. > > It's a pity that the VWRAP people are no longer active in the IETF. > They really had a fresh view on those issues. Their > interconnection requirements where just to complex for the trapezoid > and nobody of them had a limiting telephony background. Without pointers to docs, I can't evaluate this statement. Be specific!
- [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Wolfgang Beck
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB is not SIP Erik Lagerway
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Wolfgang Beck
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Ravindran, Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Ravindran, Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB is not SIP Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB is not SIP Neil Stratford
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB is not SIP Dan York
- Re: [rtcweb] Regarding Federation Arguments Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] RTCWEB is not SIP Tim Panton