As said, the implications of such a decision have been discussed and there are pros and cons to the approach. "evil" is probably not a correct clarification. On Mar 30, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Eric Burger wrote: > 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 >> > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf