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

Hi Jose/Inaki,

IIUC, this draft is not directly related to RTCWeb but RTCWeb developer may use it as an one of the option. ISTM, this draft has to be tracked in sipcore or dispatch for adding the new transport layer to SIP protocol.

Thanks

Partha

From: José Luis Millán [mailto:jmillan@aliax.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:12 PM
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
Cc: Iñaki Baz Castillo; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-vs-websocket

Hi,

Let's clarify that the submitted draft states a way to adopt WebSocket as a transport protocol for SIP.  This makes feasible the SIP communication between WebSocket capable nodes and nodes using other transports defined in SIP, which facilitates the inter-operation within nowadays implementations and implementations to be defined in this group.    

We are not proposing this specification as the unique/only signaling protocol within WebRTC. That's another subject out of the scope of the draft.

Regards.

2011/9/14 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>

Hi Inaki,

<snip>

The fact that there are other alternatives for signaling in the web does not mean that using SIP is invalid.
If I want to build a SIP phone in a web, why should I use libjingle rather than SIP protocol? Why should I code a complex server behaving as a gateway between Jingle and SIP protocols?

Any protocol conversion (i.e. from Jingle to SIP) means loss of features. Our draft proposes the contrary: no protocol conversion (just SIP), and just transport protocol conversion (as already exists in SIP when bridging UDP/TCP/TLS-TCP/SCTP...).
</snip>

I agree with your problem statement. I have raised the same concern in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg00845.html. IMO, your solution is a workaround and we will end-up with your solution in case signaling protocol is not standardized as part of RTCWeb.

Thanks
Partha

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:ibc@aliax.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:54 PM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Bernard Aboba; markus.isomaki@nokia.com; rtcweb@ietf.org; Roman
>Shpount
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-vs-websocket

>
>2011/9/14 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>:
>
>>         There is no need of one layer (SIP) above to create the dialog
>but
>> lightweight XML signaling mechanism works.
>
>Hi Ravindran, I've replied to a similar question in this mail (point 2):
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg01120.html
>
>
>Best regards.
>
>
>--
>Iñaki Baz Castillo
><ibc@aliax.net>
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb