Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was RE: Remote recording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session recording client]

Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> Thu, 08 September 2011 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.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 07FFF21F8B46 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.004, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 RZ05jvwTt21t for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A53621F8B23 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.12]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p88JMTxx019426 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 8 Sep 2011 14:22:30 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail4.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p88JMScf030858 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 8 Sep 2011 14:22:29 -0500
Received: from [135.244.18.36] (faynberg.lra.lucent.com [135.244.18.36]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p88JMQUq001196; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 14:22:27 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4E6915F2.5000007@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:22:26 -0400
From: Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB08B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <89177AB2-F721-47E4-8471-2180EDA10615@voxeo.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB34D@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <496EE152-41F2-49AB-A136-05735FE5A9F9@voxeo.com><101C6067BEC68246B0C3F6843BCCC1E31018BF6BE2@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <4E540FE2.7020605@alcatel-lucent.com> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5106423F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E6595E7.7060503@skype.net> <4E661C83.5000103@alcatel-lucent.com> <4E668FB3.9020601@skype.net> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F08FE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E67AD3D.9000005@alvestrand.no> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F090F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E686663.1050900@alvestrand.no> <4E68CB68.3020100@alcatel-lucent.com> <4E68D182.2090003@alvestrand.no> <4E68D742.4010203@alcatel-lucent.com> <4E68D8B5.7010602@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <4E68D8B5.7010602@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090203040201040906070206"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.12
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was RE: Remote recording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session recording client]
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
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, 08 Sep 2011 19:20:42 -0000

> On 09/08/11 16:54, Igor Faynberg wrote:
> ...

> If the issue is getting a signal from a Web server to a client, 
> there's approximately 100 ways to get notifications from the server to 
> the client using HTTP (hanging GET being one of them). 

I thought  that COMET-like polling is inefficient. Hanging GETs 
require server resources to hold a TCP session o open. Firewalls and IE7 
time out  a GET after 30-60 seconds.

> Now that WS is getting standardized, there will be 101.
>

  101st, seems to be a solution, I agree.  But it has not finished 
standardization, while SIP has.

Igor