Re: [V3] Gateway new to old

Justin Uberti <> Fri, 27 March 2020 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFF03A0F6B for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5-jm0rnpAedn for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C14F43A0FB8 for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x206so7072168vsx.5 for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=PpinHgG05xSUoUSPRxcwQal2/AV77vchLZM1LdYsT/U=; b=BF1BJQB5I3ceDmXJhF9Dzg3uyziaWwYUYrIh2tLzv4F1rOhrETGGDmqcRmaldLAfxx JZHAG1AxWBL0g3HEB+4dG2cZXH8P72CT5EUHQslCgeX8yVxVrri9az8HQQG75Ym8G5tb IgEzvPP1zHus2G5tVabKm5Rb4M5joS72oWTPStMOxbnCPYOiI+lBAhIDMIl0d8J5zwI3 b2LOX76UK1Y5rg7KJtxQbGJ+6KuPYPEhskrA9bwh636AzbJBQIUi8Ukiv29JVpR1eJMF aIKz1fC0hlJUwetclJGP3hvRGde9i7Q34Y3bpFX1jGDO7A4xZ8btoX4A1qBqhjjmdXUZ luZQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=PpinHgG05xSUoUSPRxcwQal2/AV77vchLZM1LdYsT/U=; b=OGeCY9DC26ysGCa6NyoT7WdVD0eMwjHyQOokJ6N8tz8qRV4lKDmg5I5q1IVqA8I8q2 NbVXPzlmfklxWTqNK6ShWFga1jLVWZQ76ZgP5N6RtI3ucK/5GjkEzN8SNxm4pmYwng31 Im56I41X/7fpUtwLv7EC5LovD5hUUayfvdtfFo/DOTQ1rJiWBxHW9Me6CIQRFu/JhRxC 8LUlKeOx1F59w9drZ8TqJfe6uD7N53EuYXouGGvxcRoE6BrmxLTNTHDmD0t4D0dC67PE ykKyrc64PaRazYiL/HexdpoMKPM2AIsQuMkM8RdAU7jzpx7YAR0hd48HTJc55J1VNMP0 RBwg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYjTkHCgqNCrfd7lHCBnEl5+5nmbeS3+fYhMCFs2tt6TvvdUigX g7yk0D+cUncJNHv0ffQkgOWMjfgGPvce3DkeMHUBUA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypK/XcjHrCAwHf3+bOwEXp0ZeOjCJOa5tqqshJ95paMJ6Lu7Rxpy6ZSyFIGPm1Tn1I0UrCV/2CtfPkuh1iLaQMw=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ec81:: with SMTP id h1mr622303vsp.96.1585340539299; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Justin Uberti <>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 13:22:07 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Cullen Jennings <>
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b1f1b605a1dbdb75"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [V3] Gateway new to old
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 20:22:48 -0000

It's hard to imagine that we can avoid this if we are in fact going to use
H3 as a substrate.

I do think it would be useful to ensure the RIPT->RTP gateway can be
stateless and transparent (i.e., you can transform a RIPT frame into a RTP
packet with reasonable fidelity), so that said gateway is all you need in
order for existing services to participate in the RIPT ecosystem.

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 9:32 AM Cullen Jennings <> wrote:

> On Mar 27, 2020, at 8:23 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
>> wrote:
> The next media transport issue that was barely discussed in the BOF is the
> legacy (RTP) interoperate question. This is going to come back in the scope
> discussion and do needs at least a direction.
> In WebRTC, we decided to be able to gateway SIP to WebRTC without
> processing media. That turned out to be a major limitation to how WebRTC
> worked. That is good and we have WebRTC but for this, I am storngly of the
> view we should not have that design constraint.
> I think it is fine to require a media gateway to go from RIPT to RTP. Sure
> that should be pretty easy - one of the major use cases for this work will
> likely involve building SBCs that talk RIPT on one side and SIP on the
> other. Pretty sure that a bunch of other people are thinking about the
> same.
> That sound right to you are or are you arguing for something else ?
> --
> V3 mailing list