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

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Thu, 08 September 2011 19:28 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 0B66D21F8B9E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.657
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.319, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 U-lNFFbeBuq8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6125021F8B80 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.88]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p88JUE9u013884 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:30:14 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1315510215; bh=pHn668N//xYKqo5ZWyFY4LsXz3I=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=eMAk6m4EY2HJ3fA+Mfja4qtXEg1HNFCxZFw/bdMO4LfSAkXtUD+BM2rHxlTuqkfEu iqmzkUJ5TUlxkosfOGMhA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=vCPsp4XTMMN1Nu9URBdhWf+SvePNywOMaPF8+Ff3uIv9zvF4qCjPu0Zg1fGPC7Mjz wD4FrAQW9M7ORZpRNpFjg==
Received: from ywa17 (ywa17.prod.google.com [10.192.1.17]) by wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p88JTjqt024162 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:30:13 -0700
Received: by ywa17 with SMTP id 17so1105815ywa.41 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=o/PoeiPjeXlnNuJdFG60VgEv1n2BufCvkdhfIvJAW7M=; b=v1yOIhPQc+7GQRmBYNvcQD5NJenJPZWaXnH+LXFQr44GR4vmaKHuSbwmk2x8AAvtPs 0E7WYMBxyFxlM7vTPtzg==
Received: by 10.231.26.68 with SMTP id d4mr967632ibc.66.1315510213419; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.26.68 with SMTP id d4mr967623ibc.66.1315510213190; Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.36.10 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 12:29:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E6915F2.5000007@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>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 15:29:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-0J8NPrfzrmQwh3VifAG1r0j+SLPg+7E_=2mCtgz-CC_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517740478f4a27e04ac731641
X-System-Of-Record: true
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 19:28:23 -0000

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Igor Faynberg <
igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> 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.
>

In that case, you start a new hanging GET. If Gmail can work using this
approach, telephony applications should be able to use it too.

>
>
> Now that WS is getting standardized, there will be 101.
>
>
>  101st, seems to be a solution, I agree.  But it has not finished
> standardization, while SIP has.
>

I would argue that WebSocket is considerably more mature than WebRTC.

>
> Igor
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>