Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <> Sun, 11 September 2011 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC3A21F8AB0 for <>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.508
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yCgOWJPxLwKY for <>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A1521F8AAC for <>; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8BKEWrW030712; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:14:32 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:14:02 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 01:43:59 +0530
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <017201cc6ef8$33f571d0$9be05570$@com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?
Thread-Index: AcxugwPGZZwx2t5GRiO1eoON13qQJAAcqVZQAHIio4A=
References: <> <> <> <><> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <><> <> <017201cc6ef8$33f571d0$9be 05570$@c om>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
To: Aaron Clauson <>,
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Sep 2011 20:14:02.0458 (UTC) FILETIME=[593483A0:01CC70BF]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:12:03 -0000

Hi Aaron,

Javascript SIP stacks (Ex: exists already and RTCWeb1.0 is
not a gating factor for those development. My worry is that RTCWeb1.0 is
standardized and then identify the gap in signaling which is not a good
protocol design. It is better to discuss with signaling rather than just
solving media protocol requirement alone. In case any implementation
deployed, the backward compatibility has to be provided till the end of
the product and RTCWeb1.0 is a not an exception.

For the time factor concern, let us work for the quick closer and I have
no disagreement there. But I have problem in case it is mentioned as the
issues will not be solved to meet the WG deadline.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: [] On
>Of Aaron Clauson
>Sent: Friday, September 09, 2011 7:26 PM
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?
>Another 2 cents from a SIP person.
>I think attempting to incorporate SIP (or Jingle et al) into RTCWeb
>would be
>a bad idea for the reason that it would significantly slow down and
>complicate the standard. If SIP is included in RTCWeb then there will
>to be a discussion, already emerging here, about which parts of SIP to
>include and all the other intricacies of SIP; transports, sips vs sip,
>request routing etc etc.
>Writing a javascript SIP stack is a small task compared to getting the
>RTCWeb media capabilities built into browsers. As soon as the first
>appears that supports RTP then javascript SIP stacks will start popping
>all over the place.
>I for one would love to be able to process calls in my browser and to
>able to do it yesterday. Slowing the RTCWeb process down for something
>will take care of itself anyway, namely readily available javascript
>signalling libraries, would be a shame.
>rtcweb mailing list