Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protocol-00 (Open In-The-Wire Protocol for RTC-Web)
Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Mon, 31 October 2011 03:30 UTC
Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 C8B7C1F0C68 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 3jQHLmphhVWe for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 416FE1F0C63 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywt2 with SMTP id 2so6555084ywt.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.145.37 with SMTP id o25mr6612853yhj.31.1320031845903; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i50sm15690997yhk.11.2011.10.30.20.30.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:30:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywt2 with SMTP id 2so6555060ywt.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.62.136 with SMTP id y8mr20249887pbr.87.1320031844386; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.62.170 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <76E0CAF7-E66C-467D-A518-59143A663E31@cisco.com>
References: <CALiegfmvWWMf6dSikgfZqnSPuN-6UZKwAMfKu9HP2uqJxHMVCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmFE0zhBg6aZMtRMO5q-k6_jeHAn9q2XivNw8yjNVqyag@mail.gmail.com> <715A5714-B44A-4E1D-AC2F-7CC2EAD42D0F@acmepacket.com> <76E0CAF7-E66C-467D-A518-59143A663E31@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:30:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvX77pagXirEAozET+F1Y7qrgqgsWdbUvH=r-Bn69LUpw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec53961a22d48da04b08fddea"
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protocol-00 (Open In-The-Wire Protocol for RTC-Web)
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: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:30:46 -0000
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote: > > On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:09 , Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > > One process-based concern about making requirement 4 a WG requirement: > you can't actually do SIP over Websocket with a "pure SIP network" until we > get Websocket into a SIP-extending RFC as a new transport type. I wouldn't > want to hold up WebRTC docs becoming RFCs, waiting for the DISPATCH and > probable SIPCORE process to make a websocket SIP transport into a RFC. I > *want* to add Websocket as a SIP transport type, but it's not actually as > trivial as one would think. > > I think a better idea would be to create a new type of server which works as a proxy between websocket and arbitrary TCP/UDP type connection. This way we don't need to break TURN servers to implement this. Proposing something like this obviously outside of scope of WebRTC, and it also has some interesting security issues (how do we proxy websocket to TLS socket for SIPS?). _____________ Roman Shpount
- [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protocol-0… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Jim McEachern
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Wolfgang Beck
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Summary of draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- [rtcweb] Summary of draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Summary of draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-… Saul Ibarra Corretge
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protoc… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Summary of draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-… Cullen Jennings