Re: [rtcweb] draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-vs-websocket

Binod PG <binod.pg@oracle.com> Wed, 14 September 2011 05:51 UTC

Return-Path: <binod.pg@oracle.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 C7ED221F8C5B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 F5GAf3-Ryb7x for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcsinet15.oracle.com (rcsinet15.oracle.com [148.87.113.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E506A21F8C58 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtcsinet22.oracle.com (rtcsinet22.oracle.com [66.248.204.30]) by rcsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id p8E5s1c7032354 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:54:03 GMT
Received: from acsmt356.oracle.com (acsmt356.oracle.com [141.146.40.156]) by rtcsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p8E5rxkl028065 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:54:00 GMT
Received: from abhmt107.oracle.com (abhmt107.oracle.com [141.146.116.59]) by acsmt356.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p8E5rsTu029934; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:53:54 -0500
Received: from dhcp-cblr03-229-154.India.Sun.COM (/129.158.229.154) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:53:54 -0700
Message-Id: <F901F04F-355F-4A85-8C1E-99EBD1588087@oracle.com>
From: Binod PG <binod.pg@oracle.com>
To: Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@acmepacket.com>
In-Reply-To: <7B7B2040-1523-4C10-8B9B-D4EE3FB541A9@acmepacket.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:23:50 +0530
References: <CALiegfk6BhtzErXOQM8iSV7FC6isYUwOS1KPYCw_M1vEcNP6eQ@mail.gmail.com>, <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0B37@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>, <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620AEC41@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com> <BLU152-W91B8D02E434D6209F379393050@phx.gbl> <1810E0F6-9600-4BF5-82A9-ADCC07103999@oracle.com> <7B7B2040-1523-4C10-8B9B-D4EE3FB541A9@acmepacket.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-Source-IP: rtcsinet22.oracle.com [66.248.204.30]
X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090207.4E70417B.0149,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-vs-websocket
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: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 05:51:57 -0000

On 14-Sep-11, at 10:53 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:

>
> On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:38 AM, Binod PG wrote:
>
>>
>> On 14-Sep-11, at 3:34 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>>>
>>> [BA] That may be your opinion.  Others may choose to transport SIP  
>>> over HTTP or HTTPS, or choose some other signaling protocol  
>>> entirely (e.g. XMPP).  The beauty of RTCWEB is to enable the  
>>> choice to be made by application developers according to their  
>>> needs.
>>
>> How do you see a media gateway library in the (web) server handle  
>> all such signaling protocols/transport? Would RTCWeb provide/have a  
>> mechanism
>> to indicate the protocol/signal chosen by the application?
>
> No.  The server is deployed by the same people who deploy the  
> javascript, since by definition the javascript is provided by that  
> server.  It's not a mystery to the web server what the "signaling  
> protocol" used between the javascript and the server is - its  
> whatever the developer of the javascript and server-side code  
> decides it to be.  It doesn't have to be any standard whatsoever,  
> because there is no interoperability problem to solve between them.   
> It could be XMPP, or it could be SIP, or it could be MGCP, or it  
> could be Skinny/SCCP, or it could be create-your-own.  There may  
> well be pre-packaged js libraries available which do it all for you,  
> but they can do it however they like.

A webserver can host multiple web applications (potentially from  
multiple vendors altogether). If some web applications need to gateway  
between browser and another legacy protocol (eg: SIP, XMPP....), then
a good number of applications would like to use a generic media  
gateway component or library.  For someone to develop such a media  
gateway library, doesn't it need to know, what protocol it is brokering?

Or you do not consider that to be an important aspect?

- Binod.