IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 08 September 2011 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 59B1E21F8B05 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:49:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ePAnOthHCwZB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB8021F8744 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-178.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.178]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53AF540E87; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:54:35 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4E691CC6.9050905@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:51:34 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
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> <4E6915F2.5000007@alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E6915F2.5000007@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
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 19:49:43 -0000

On 9/8/11 1:22 PM, Igor Faynberg wrote:
>> 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, 

draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol is close to approve as a Proposed
Standard (discussed on this morning's IESG telechat, still a few issues
to clean up). Not that PS means finalization.

> while SIP has.

SIP is not a full Standard. rfc3261bis, anyone? ;-)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email