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

Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 06 September 2011 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.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 63D0621F8E22 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.605
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 SCLcBJOKsGuf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail4.lucent.com (ihemail4.lucent.com [135.245.0.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB3C21F8E3D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail4.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p86Jkb4b005199 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:46:37 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p86JkaXE001890 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:46:37 -0500
Received: from [135.244.40.187] (faynberg.lra.lucent.com [135.244.40.187]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p86JkaBb009217; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 14:46:36 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4E66789C.4020307@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:46:36 -0400
From: Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
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> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F086B@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <4E666926.8050705@skype.net> <43A0D702-1D1F-4B4E-B8E6-C9F1A06E3F8A@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <43A0D702-1D1F-4B4E-B8E6-C9F1A06E3F8A@edvina.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.39
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10
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
Reply-To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
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 19:44:52 -0000

The key question is:  What MUST the browser provide to support a SIP 
implementation in an application? (I asked this question a few thousand 
messages back, but the thread was inconclusive.)

HTTP alone cannot do the job. How will the user agent receive 
notifications, for example?

Igor

On 9/6/2011 2:47 PM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
> 6 sep 2011 kl. 20:40 skrev Matthew Kaufman:
>
>> On 9/6/11 11:36 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Not if SIP is baked in to the browser it doesn't. If the browser implements a SIP phone in native code, I have no way of adding "x-header" or anything else. I live with the functionality provided by the browser.
> That's an implementation detail. One can easily add an API call to add headers on the outbound INVITE.
>
>> If on the other hand, you want SIP implemented in Javascript then sure, if a developer wants to use it, great. If they want to extend it, that's fine too. And if they'd rather use another model, they are free to do that. Just as you would expect from a *platform*.
>>
>>> 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.
>> See above.
>>>
>>>   In case you have the points why HTTP allows innovation but SIP will not, let us discuss in detail.
>> See above. I want you to be free to use SIP, but not *required* to use SIP.
>>
>> And there's some security reasons that I'd rather you tunnel it over HTTP rather than opening up your ability to send UDP packets to port 5060.
> SIP runs on TCP and TLS ports too.
>
> I am not arguing for either side, just correcting some details...
>
> /O
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb