IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] draft-sipdoc-rtcweb-open-wire-protocol-00 (Open In-The-Wire Protocol for RTC-Web)

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Mon, 31 October 2011 00:06 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 535FF11E8094 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.384
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 lLs+KeDvoGcb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E95C311E808F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=824; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1320019563; x=1321229163; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=QPudcDRhfAaAOdGbruHXp4qckl256lX4ZpQNuyV9Ju4=; b=BhqmnppVrSHsLvCijHwXmrqgtA2GrRxDquauFLyNIC52mSO2nEgOLDOp gt37a3PJLfM0sfOwd4RFfTuEu9UQpNaGdmzgIDJjLPmrjP9ehBlZJwAaF okZoQ9Z9npSCj7syQnaDWcehLUYqySqQFFK0b1CLD8rJ0XMdkza1O4XoS E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EANHlrU6rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABDqUCBBYFyAQEBAQIBEgFmBQsLDjhXBjWHYJVPAZ0biCFhBIgGjAiRfw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,428,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="11262337"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Oct 2011 00:06:02 +0000
Received: from sjc-vpn2-1232.cisco.com (sjc-vpn2-1232.cisco.com [10.21.116.208]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9V05DsA024727; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:06:02 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <715A5714-B44A-4E1D-AC2F-7CC2EAD42D0F@acmepacket.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 17:06:02 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <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>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
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 00:06:03 -0000

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.

One random idea … say that websockets was a protocol you could use to connect to a TURN server and then the TURN sever could send UPD or TCP SIP. That might be easier to deploy … not sure this is a good idea … just a random idea I thought I would mention.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email