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

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
>
>I really don't know the strong reason for tunneling SIP message within
>websocket. In fact, we are discussing SIP vs websocket in
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg01071.html mail
>thread as signaling protocol for RTCweb. Could you please mention the
>technical advantage in going in the path of SIP over websocket rather than
>having plain SIP connection over TCP or TLS or (UDP or DTLS).
>

If SIP is implemented in Javascript, as opposed to "natively" supported in the browser, Websocket is the best transport for it.

I could see a path here that the SIP server vendors should add SIP over WebSockets in their arsenal of transport options, and this way those servers could become easily usable by WebRTC providers. As a counterpart we would need a good open source Javascript SIP library, with the WebSocket support. And then, wouldn't we have achieved what everyone wants? We have managed to keep SIP out of the browser, as some people like. Yet we have enabled WebRTC providers and app developers to use SIP, as some other people prefer. And finally, SIP infra vendors can continue selling their gear, WebRTC compliant :-) 

So maybe this draft is something that should be taken to Standards Track within the RAI area, ASAP.

Markus