Re: [rtcweb] draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket -- WebSocket Transport for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Thu, 15 September 2011 09:59 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A71B021F862F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 02:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.425
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sHoKXY5uusGA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 02:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.westhawk.co.uk (zimbra.westhawk.co.uk [192.67.4.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83FBB21F85CE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 02:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.14] (unknown [93.89.81.113]) by zimbra.westhawk.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7A137A902; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:15:00 +0100 (BST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-618791845
From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABw3bnO+85i-TtuqS+P4n+rYgyxyoASc8HXpADhy4QPTC0_szA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 11:02:04 +0100
Message-Id: <6F469757-6B5C-4DC9-BC34-026F34C7E508@phonefromhere.com>
References: <CABw3bnO+85i-TtuqS+P4n+rYgyxyoASc8HXpADhy4QPTC0_szA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Luis_Mill=E1n?= <jmillan@aliax.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket -- WebSocket Transport for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:59:55 -0000

On 13 Sep 2011, at 21:50, José Luis Millán wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:25 PM,  <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> wrote:
> > Hi Inaki,
> >
> > Fully agree about everything you say below.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Sorry if this mail arrives out of the original mail thread.
> 
> >
> > It would be interesting to understand the performance differences of the native vs. Javascript SIP stack, if there is anything we should be worried about. This is my only concern when (perhaps one day) applying RTCWeb in devices like smartphones. If the JS stack works in (any of) today's high end smartphones without problems, we should be fine.
> 
> The are no meaningful performance penalties at all using the JavaScript SIP stack in our prototype. In fact, multiple SIP stack instances can run in a single Web browser freshly.  BTW, is there any WebSocket capable web browser for smartphones?

As an additional datapoint, The Phono.com javascript XMPP stack performs fine on android and iOS within a Phonegap app.
Native browser javascript engines tend to be slightly better optimized than the ones available to mobile apps,
so I doubt that performance would be an issue.

Tim.