And the Proxy <-> Browser interaction is 100% out of IETF scope. For that matter, the IETF should be pointing out how dangerous and evil such a proposal is, as it means the end of consumer choice and a competitive marketplace for clients. On Mar 30, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf