Re: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser application with separate webserver & voipserver
Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> Sat, 06 August 2011 16:36 UTC
Return-Path: <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
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 7A09921F8680 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 09:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Hwp9iYDaDZV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 09:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.skype.net (mx.skype.net [78.141.177.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F0421F85A0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 09:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.skype.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269D51705; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 18:36:34 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=skype.net; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to: content-type; s=mx; bh=4BsM8D/r7LqamSHXc96gKeGZ7k8=; b=XCrYuKxxG EAVeqdasg8aMM6DAb2+846diDttr4nTdiarKv4CRo5Vm3yQZ2to7ZEg6IREsRJfS UFcplPtiTePzvTcPnsXt9YxnL/yi0Uz5c/KK9Q0j9finUdOwsWJ2vbJEmS8YgEGB 8YQ6UL8ysm9OQl2W8iIP/C4p/+a6nkBfhY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=skype.net; h=message-id:date:from :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; q=dns; s=mx; b=PBU/WW/3LIM8+b3vcAqc5MdKDfEVB/HczFc3rdOam9V1ilJ3 /hDikYUtNrZ0kO740ZXhk6GZ5/RiSEMZESw3y/AJoYv6Vdi36j2UHEseza17vAAb xX5Iku9Zw5X+BINSa6GMh+XGcwljFQ/NtV3bruQkp3o9vPgxB58O3GlXemY=
Received: from zimbra.skype.net (zimbra.skype.net [78.141.177.82]) by mx.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20389CF; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 18:36:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3D503507A01; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 18:36:33 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at lu2-zimbra.skype.net
Received: from zimbra.skype.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.skype.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s7EL+cgRNz2d; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 18:36:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.10.155.2] (unknown [198.202.199.254]) by zimbra.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B95203507687; Sat, 6 Aug 2011 18:36:32 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E3D6D8C.1010105@skype.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 09:36:28 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
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: "Parthasarathi R (partr)" <partr@cisco.com>
References: <A11921905DA1564D9BCF64A6430A62390608EC13@XMB-BGL-411.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A11921905DA1564D9BCF64A6430A62390608EC13@XMB-BGL-411.cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040306040707010506030808"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser application with separate webserver & voipserver
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: Sat, 06 Aug 2011 16:36:15 -0000
On 8/6/2011 6:19 AM, Parthasarathi R (partr) wrote: > Hi all, > browser application should have the mechanism by which it interacts > with voipserver directly instead of depend on the webserver. This > usecase provides the flexibility for the webdeveloper to focus on the > webdevelopment and use the existing voipservers for voip services by > just invoking the API. > I'm not very sure whether this usecase is same as sec 4.3.1 as there > is no protocol architecture shown: > browser--------webservers---web services > (Javascript) > | > ----------------voipservers-----VoIP entity (browser) > This architecture facilites for webdeveloper to choose the different > vendor for webservers & voipservers. It is possible for webserver & > voipserver co-located but not mandatory. This architecture is slightly > different from draft-rosenberg-rtcweb-framework-00 fig 2 (Browser RTC > Trapezoid). Please let me know your opinion on the same. > My opinion is that as long as the "voipservers" use HTTP-based signaling and RTCWEB-compatible VoIP, then that's fine, and indistinguishable from other use cases. But if the "voipservers" are existing SIP servers then no, I don't want additional inflexible code in the browser that turns it into a SIP phone. Matthew Kaufman
- [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser applicat… Parthasarathi R (partr)
- Re: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser appl… Sohel Khan
- Re: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser appl… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser appl… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser appl… Parthasarathi R (partr)