Re: [rtcweb] draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket -- WebSocket Transport for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 15 September 2011 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 AB7C911E8073 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.735
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.735 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.241, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Z4tUCR1OVCKm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f181.google.com (mail-gx0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 594CC21F8B65 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so3312836gxk.40 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.118.229 with SMTP id kp5mr1005922pbb.303.1316108045758; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:34:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com (mail-pz0-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p7sm24763060pbe.0.2011.09.15.10.34.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk33 with SMTP id 33so1582806pzk.18 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.39.229 with SMTP id s5mr2283054pbk.107.1316108041757; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.55.39 with HTTP; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6F469757-6B5C-4DC9-BC34-026F34C7E508@phonefromhere.com>
References: <CABw3bnO+85i-TtuqS+P4n+rYgyxyoASc8HXpADhy4QPTC0_szA@mail.gmail.com> <6F469757-6B5C-4DC9-BC34-026F34C7E508@phonefromhere.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:34:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvCSJWS+F72P_WOFapmtffkLCSSe3A-rDEUOhNjWcoh4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec520f3fb50a5bd04acfe4870"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-websocket -- WebSocket Transport for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
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, 15 Sep 2011 17:31:55 -0000

The only potential problem with mobile applications and javascript based
signaling code is the effect of maintaining registrations for long periods
of time while waiting for a call on battery life and network utilization. A
regular SIP library can be designed is such a way that the device will go
into sleep mode and will wake up when a SIP packet is received. JavaScript
will need to open a connection to a server and send ping messages at
regular, fairly short, intervals, that will cause device to wake up every
time ping message needs to be sent and to consume both power and network
capacity. Such applications, running for the long periods of time can
seriously decrease battery lifetime. On the other hand, doing this during an
active call has a negligible effect on both power consumption or network
utilization, since device is already running and sending media.
_____________
Roman Shpount


On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> wrote:

>
> On 13 Sep 2011, at 21:50, José Luis Millán wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:25 PM,  <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> wrote:
> > Hi Inaki,
> >
> > Fully agree about everything you say below.
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry if this mail arrives out of the original mail thread.
>
> >
> > It would be interesting to understand the performance differences of the
> native vs. Javascript SIP stack, if there is anything we should be worried
> about. This is my only concern when (perhaps one day) applying RTCWeb in
> devices like smartphones. If the JS stack works in (any of) today's high end
> smartphones without problems, we should be fine.
>
> The are no meaningful performance penalties at all using the JavaScript SIP
> stack in our prototype. In fact, multiple SIP stack instances can run in a
> single Web browser freshly.  BTW, is there any WebSocket capable web browser
> for smartphones?
>
>
> As an additional datapoint, The Phono.com javascript XMPP stack performs
> fine on android and iOS within a Phonegap app.
> Native browser javascript engines tend to be slightly better optimized than
> the ones available to mobile apps,
> so I doubt that performance would be an issue.
>
> Tim.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>