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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Thu, 08 September 2011 17:10 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 195EB21F8B10 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 QjFqeKVipRlU for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538D721F8593 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:09:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail06.sonusnet.com (sonusmail06.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.156]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p88HCBgo032274; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:12:11 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail06.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:11:41 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 22:41:17 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0991@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E67C3EE.50707@jesup.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was RE: Remoterecording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session recordingclient]
Thread-Index: Acxtk5lMXnIRWpfTSmyU6qdkKwIXdwAtiNrQ
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><033458F56EC2A64E8D2D7B759FA3E7E7020E64DC@sonusmail04.sonusnet.com><E4EC1B17-0CC4-4F79-96DD-84E589FCC4F0@edvina.net> <4E67C3EE.50707@jesup.org>
From: "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: "Randell Jesup" <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Sep 2011 17:11:41.0200 (UTC) FILETIME=[6077C900:01CC6E4A]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was RE: Remoterecording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session recordingclient]
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 17:10:15 -0000

In principle, I like your idea.

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf
>Of Randell Jesup
>Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 12:50 AM
>To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was RE:
>Remoterecording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session
>recordingclient]
>
>On 9/7/2011 3:07 AM, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>> 6 sep 2011 kl. 21:24 skrev Asveren, Tolga:
>>
>>> What about semantics (adding just a X-header won't help there) or
how
>much SIP would be left anyhow if all semantical control is exposed
>through the API?
>>>
>>> I think bridged line appearance is a good test to run against
>different models.
>>>
>> Well, I tried to stay neutral but examples likes this makes me not
>want SIP in the browser. DTMF, Early Media, bridge line apperances and
>other PSTN legacy will make the implementation too focused on classical
>telephony and we'll spend too much time implementing features that are
>application specific and we can implement in controlling applications,
>client or server-side.
>>
>> Cullen tried to make a draft with "limited" SIP (maybe "SIP Lite")
but
>it will be hard to protect that from the myriad of extensions that add
>PSTN functionality that's not really needed to set up multimedia calls
>between two browser users. It may be needed for gatewaying to legacy
>systems, but if we don't "stop Olle in the gate" - verbatim translation
>of a Swedish saying that propably doesn't mean much to most people on
>the list - I think we will never be done.
>>
>> Of course, being a SIP developer, I started off with thinking that
SIP
>in the browser was the default route. I am beginning to understand that
>the browser is the user interface part we all need, the media handler.
>We all have different requirements on how to control that media GUI and
>to get anywhere I am beginning to think the logic for signalling to set
>up rendevouz points and manage sessions has to move "somewhere else"
>where we can implement SIP, XMPP or some other protocol that fulfills
>the need of our respective application.
>
>I also started from the same point - assume SIP.  SIP gives you all the
>things that the zillions of hours and emails to define it and define
>extensions and secure it provides, without having to reinvent all those
>wheels (or ask app developers to reinvent them).  Why go through the
>horrible pain of choosing something else, or why throw the app
>developers to the wolves to fend for themselves?
>
>However...
>
>Two things have swayed me.  The primary one is the suggestion of
>Offer/Answer in the browser.  This breaks out the important negotiation
>piece that almost any application would need, and while not perfect,
SDP
>O/A is a zillion times simpler than SIP with all the extensions one
>could use.
>
>The other thing that swayed me was thinking about federation and the
>apps that will be built with this.  A webrtc app talks to its
>(web)server, other webrtc clients running the app that talk to the
>server, and to other webrtc applications/networks that federate with it
>(and their clients).
>
>Federation is in the same hands as the person who provides/wrote the
>app.  If they have no interest in federation you can't force it, and
>they may have no use for all the fancy SIP standards.
>
>On the other hand, if they *want* to either provide access to the wider
>communication net that is the PSTN network, now or in the future, or
>they want easy federation with other networks, it behooves them to use
>SIP or something very close to it or equivalent/convertible (at a basic
>level at least) to it.
>
>So what conclusions do I draw from this?
>
>1) O/A via SDP in the browser simplifies a lot of things (including
>handling new codecs, etc).  It doesn't extremely limit an application,
>though we should think about how an application can interact with the
>fmtp/etc parameters used.
>	
>2) SIP as a *separate* item that can be cleanly and easily *added* to a
>webrtc app to handle the call setup/etc is a good idea.
>
>This means a webrtc app could use something else, or roll its own.
Many
>would use SIP.
>
>This would require (limited) SIP to be available as part of webrtc in
>the browser - but as an option, not as a mandate.  An application could
>use an extended SIP client via JS or other mechanism.  Basic SIP would
>need to be in all webrtc implementations so the apps could rely on
>having the option.
>
>This would make building apps & services that can (optionally) call
PSTN
>phones easy (very easy perhaps), while not limiting the ability of app
>developers to innovate.  It also makes it easier to build servers to
>handle webrtc apps.
>
>--
>Randell Jesup
>randell-ietf@jesup.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb