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

[Binod PG <[e-mail]>]

On 14-Sep-11, at 3:34 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:

> > 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.

How do you see a media gateway library in the (web) server handle all  
such signaling protocols/transport? Would RTCWeb provide/have a  
mechanism
to indicate the protocol/signal chosen by the application?

thanks,
Binod.
[As an Individual]