[V3] Gateway new to old

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Fri, 27 March 2020 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
X-Original-To: v3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49FBF3A1604 for <v3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ngNmzLIrFB4j for <v3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp69.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (smtp69.ord1d.emailsrvr.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D94823A077F for <v3@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: by smtp1.relay.ord1d.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id 0564640262; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:23:46 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: from [] (S0106004268479ae3.cg.shawcable.net []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by (trex/5.7.12); Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:23:47 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F5E04A4E-13A5-4902-A8DE-4BD89A6F06AB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <3595789d7a8d24671250e2ca04fcf78eb04179a4.camel@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 10:23:46 -0600
Cc: "v3@ietf.org" <v3@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <EFF58041-128E-42F6-9303-A058A5A02E22@iii.ca>
References: <3595789d7a8d24671250e2ca04fcf78eb04179a4.camel@ericsson.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14)
X-Classification-ID: 69ab0285-d219-4044-9986-2353e9ffba2f-1-1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v3/pRikCueuBvkst3ltjQ8MgbX_47M>
Subject: [V3] Gateway new to old
X-BeenThere: v3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <v3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v3>, <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v3/>
List-Post: <mailto:v3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v3>, <mailto:v3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 16:27:44 -0000

> On Mar 27, 2020, at 8:23 AM, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 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 ?