IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 06 September 2011 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.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 B96DA21F86A0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 06:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.605
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 ytKIO3kYBlFM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 06:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail3.lucent.com (ihemail3.lucent.com [135.245.0.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C6E21F86DD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 06:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.9]) by ihemail3.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id p86DDfvG024575 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:13:41 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from umail.lucent.com (umail-ce2.ndc.lucent.com [135.3.40.63]) by usnavsmail1.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id p86DDePS021761 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:13:41 -0500
Received: from [135.244.40.187] (faynberg.lra.lucent.com [135.244.40.187]) by umail.lucent.com (8.13.8/TPES) with ESMTP id p86DDd3n003565; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:13:40 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <4E661C83.5000103@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:13:39 -0400
From: Igor Faynberg <igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com>
Organization: Alcatel-Lucent
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: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4E6595E7.7060503@skype.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060602050607000503040302"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.37
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.9
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?[was RE: Remote recording - RTC-Web client acting as SIPREC session recording client]
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: igor.faynberg@alcatel-lucent.com
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, 06 Sep 2011 13:11:58 -0000

I find this reasoning hard to understand.  First, the SIP standard has 
been around for a decade. What new standardization is needed?

Igor

On 9/5/2011 11:39 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 8/23/2011 5:57 PM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>>
>> I'm interested in hearing the reasons for why SIP MUST NOT be used in 
>> browser.
>>
>
> The primary reason for avoiding a protocol like SIP between the web 
> browser and its associated server(s) is that adding *any* 
> functionality requires a round of standardization effort, whereas 
> following the web model (HTML and Javascript in the clients, arbitrary 
> signaling over HTTP) allows for immediate and frequent innovation on 
> that channel.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email