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

[Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]>]

On 9/6/11 11:36 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>
> Matthew,
>
> Even in case of SIP, there is no need of standardization in case it is 
> within single webserver(skype). SIP supports x-header or proprietary 
> header to extend the way you want it for providing innovative 
> functionality.
>

Not if SIP is baked in to the browser it doesn't. If the browser 
implements a SIP phone in native code, I have no way of adding 
"x-header" or anything else. I live with the functionality provided by 
the browser.

If on the other hand, you want SIP implemented in Javascript then sure, 
if a developer wants to use it, great. If they want to extend it, that's 
fine too. And if they'd rather use another model, they are free to do 
that. Just as you would expect from a *platform*.

> There is no extension barrier from SIP perspective but it ensure that 
> basic call works across web servers. For example, skype browser user 
> will able to talk to gmail real-time user even though all skype 
> functionality are not supported.
>
See above.
>
>  In case you have the points why HTTP allows innovation but SIP will 
> not, let us discuss in detail.
>

See above. I want you to be free to use SIP, but not *required* to use SIP.

And there's some security reasons that I'd rather you tunnel it over 
HTTP rather than opening up your ability to send UDP packets to port 5060.

Matthew Kaufman