ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: For Monday's technical plenary - Review of draft-tschofenig-post-standardization-00

2011-03-30 02:15:34
Dave, 

I explain the change with two figures in order not to be misunderstood (again). 
I use SIP as an example; Jonathan gave a nice presentation.

Working Assumption previously: 

    ............................          ..............................
    .                          .          .                            .
    .                +-------+ .          . +-------+                  .
    .                |       | .  SIP     . |       |                  .
    .                | Proxy |------------- | Proxy |                  .
    .                |   1   | .          . |  2    |                  .
    .                |       | .          . |       |                  .
    .              / +-------+ .          . +-------+ \                .
    .             /            .          .            \               .
    .            /             .          .             \  SIP         .
    .     SIP   /              .          .              \             .
    .          /               .          .               \            .
    .         /                .          .                \           .
    .        /                 .          .                 \          .
    .       /                  .          .                  \         .
    .   +-------+              .          .                +-------+   .
    .   |       |              .          .                |       |   .
    .   |       |              .          .                |       |   .
    .   | UA 1  |              .          .                | UA 2  |   .
    .   |       |              .          .                |       |   .
    .   +-------+              .          .                +-------+   .
    .              Domain A    .          .   Domain B                 .
    ............................          ..............................

                        Figure 1: The SIP trapezoid

We have lots of standardization efforts that focus on the UA<->Proxy leg in the 
RAI area. 

Suggested new working assumption: 

                +-----------+             +-----------+
                |   Web/    |             |   Web/    |
                |   SIP     |     SIP     |   SIP     |
                |           |-------------|           |
                |  Server   |             |  Server   |
                |     1     |             |     2     |
                +-----------+             +-----------+
                     /                           \
                    /                             \   Proprietary over
                   /                               \  HTTP/Websockets
                  /                                 \
                 /  Proprietary over                 \
                /   HTTP/Websockets                   \
               /                                       \
         +-----------+                           +-----------+
         |JS/HTML/CSS|                           |JS/HTML/CSS|
         +-----------+                           +-----------+
         +-----------+                           +-----------+
         |           |                           |           |
         |           |                           |           |
         |  Browser  | ------------------------- |  Browser  |
         |           |          Media            |           |
         |           |                           |           |
         +-----------+                           +-----------+

                      Figure 2: Browser RTC Trapezoid

The server-to-server interaction I was referring to in my previous mail is the 
interaction between server 1 to server 2. With cross-domain usage there still a 
standardization need. This is what I mean by "the interoperability need 
shifts". 

We had spoken about the implications of that change already.

Ciao
Hannes



On 3/29/2011 1:31 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Correct.

The interoperability need shifts away from the client-to-server side (for
example, to the server-to-server side;

No, that's wrong and I believe it is not what Eric said at all.

THERE IS STILL A CLIENT/SERVER PROTOCOL, HANNES.

ALL THAT CHANGES IS THAT THE CLIENT/SERVER PROTOCOL IS NOW PROPRIETARY.

I apologize for shouting.  I'm shouting for the classic reason that I'm 
taking your continuing to misunderstand this multiply-repeated and very 
basic point as a hearing problem.

Server-server is an entirely different task and different part of the 
architecture.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>