Re: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket subprotocol - JSEP over websockets

"Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 03 December 2014 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421C31A904D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:41:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4AuJugduWnJn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:41:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F8DC1A6F66 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:41:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.5.2.66]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id E1BC4FEC53993; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:40:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70twxchhub03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.35]) by us70uusmtp4.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id sB3Ieuh6023358 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:40:57 -0500
Received: from US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.8.56]) by US70TWXCHHUB03.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 3 Dec 2014 13:40:56 -0500
From: "Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, "ranjit@ranjitvoip.com" <ranjit@ranjitvoip.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket subprotocol - JSEP over websockets
Thread-Index: AQHQDyisWxxS9lJ1KUyV9s38pGWFQQ==
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:40:56 +0000
Message-ID: <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17828E64BCAB@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <6bef1cce67d1c9da7c29d8e0804f2551@ranjitvoip.com> <CAD5OKxs07wAu3V-x2gDnEmoAOEYL-X6njYmCTnfTBQB-YzD02w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxs07wAu3V-x2gDnEmoAOEYL-X6njYmCTnfTBQB-YzD02w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.18]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17828E64BCABUS70UWXCHMBA02z_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/QsFGvNmk2raqoUCT5NyyOu_7hsU
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket subprotocol - JSEP over websockets
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 03 Dec 2014 18:41:04 -0000

+ 1 for using SIP over WebSocket.

From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Roman Shpount
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 12:38 PM
To: ranjit@ranjitvoip.com
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Interest and need for Websocket subprotocol - JSEP over websockets

Is there any reason you cannot use SIP over WebSocket (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7118)?

Call signaling will require a lot more information then what is provided in JSEP. JSEP mostly deals with offer and answer processing. Signaling will also need to deal with things like who is calling, why they are calling, transfers, other application specific details. In other words, I think this is a very bad idea.

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:31 PM, <ranjit@ranjitvoip.com<mailto:ranjit@ranjitvoip.com>> wrote:
Hi
With websockets as a de-facto transport protocol for WebRTC signaling and JSEP being the format of encoding information, there is a need for a defining a websocket sub-protocol : jsep. So I would like to know if there is any interest in the community and also the views from experts about the need for a websocket-sub protocol for JSEP.

The main purpose of defining the sub protocol (jsep) is to make sure that the WebRTC client (WIC) and WebRTC server (E-CSCF) are receiving JSEP encoded messages.

Thanks
Ranjit

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