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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Tue, 06 September 2011 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.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 4E1A821F8D2B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 oWmwVxO51GqO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC79D21F8D2A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail05.sonusnet.com (sonusmail05.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.155]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p86Ib0nX023562; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:37:00 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail05.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:36:30 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC6CC3.E3A2F5B2"
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 00:06:23 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F086B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E661C83.5000103@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was RE: Remote recording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session recording client]
Thread-Index: AcxsltI1OnFhNZrWTKywTMB8sCGk/QAK9kAw
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>
From: "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>, "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Sep 2011 18:36:30.0882 (UTC) FILETIME=[E5542020:01CC6CC3]
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: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:34:47 -0000

Matthew,

 

Even in case of SIP, there is no need of standardization in case it is
within single webserver(skype). SIP supports x-header or proprietary
header to extend the way you want it for providing innovative
functionality. There is no extension barrier from SIP perspective but it
ensure that basic call works across web servers. For example, skype
browser user will able to talk to gmail real-time user even though all
skype functionality are not supported.

 

 In case you have the points why HTTP allows innovation but SIP will
not, let us discuss in detail.

 

Thanks

Partha

 

From: Igor Faynberg [mailto:igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 6:44 PM
To: Matthew Kaufman
Cc: Ravindran Parthasarathi; 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]

 

I find this reasoning hard to understand.  First, the SIP standard has
been around for a decade. What new standardization is needed?

Igor

On 9/5/2011 11:39 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: 

On 8/23/2011 5:57 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote: 

 

I'm interested in hearing the reasons for why SIP MUST NOT be used in
browser.

 


The primary reason for avoiding a protocol like SIP between the web
browser and its associated server(s) is that adding *any* functionality
requires a round of standardization effort, whereas following the web
model (HTML and Javascript in the clients, arbitrary signaling over
HTTP) allows for immediate and frequent innovation on that channel.

Matthew Kaufman