IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Tue, 13 September 2011 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 4635121F8B00 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 X8rZ3mpMG90D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s30.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s30.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.105]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398D221F8AFD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU152-W9 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s30.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:04:50 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU152-W91B8D02E434D6209F379393050@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_fda25d54-9b53-4ab7-858d-3a2a1d7c67dc_"
X-Originating-IP: [198.214.235.57]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: markus.isomaki@nokia.com, pravindran@sonusnet.com, ibc@aliax.net, rtcweb@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:04:50 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620AEC41@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <CALiegfk6BhtzErXOQM8iSV7FC6isYUwOS1KPYCw_M1vEcNP6eQ@mail.gmail.com>, <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0B37@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>, <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620AEC41@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Sep 2011 22:04:50.0826 (UTC) FILETIME=[28C476A0:01CC7261]
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: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:02:47 -0000

> I really don't know the strong reason for tunneling SIP message within websocket. 

[BA] Are you questioning the use of Websockets as opposed to other potential mechanisms for tunneling SIP messages over HTTP transport?

If the question is why you'd tunnel {SIP, XMPP} over HTTP/Websockets at all,  this enables the implementation of {SIP, XMPP} in Javascript.  

> If SIP is implemented in Javascript, as opposed to "natively" supported in the browser, Websocket is the best transport for it.

[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. 

> I could see a path here that the SIP server vendors should add SIP over WebSockets in their arsenal of transport options

[BA] They might do that, or they could choose to have a "Connection Manager" (e.g. something that speaks SIP over Websockets on one side, and SIP over TCP on the other) do the encapsulation/decapsulation.  

> So maybe this draft is something that should be taken to Standards Track within the RAI area, ASAP.

[BA] The main point is that this work need not be done in RTCWEB.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email