IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Wed, 14 September 2011 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <pravindran@sonusnet.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 EC4E021F8BFB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.343
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 oi6IlZpcpcuz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B5D21F8BE9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 03:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail04.sonusnet.com (sonusmail04.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.98]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8EA4gFL016063; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 06:04:42 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail04.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 06:03:18 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:33:14 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0B8A@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALiegf=K+PbGz9eEgKzKjHFCc2n=26JKZQnMzmnCRhvoWz046A@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-vs-websocket
Thread-Index: Acxyv/un6hIW/g2xSgGU1j+DC15AxQAAONDQ
References: <CALiegfk6BhtzErXOQM8iSV7FC6isYUwOS1KPYCw_M1vEcNP6eQ@mail.gmail.com><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0B37@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620AEC41@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com><BLU152-W91B8D02E434D6209F379393050@phx.gbl><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0B39@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CALiegf=K+PbGz9eEgKzKjHFCc2n=26JKZQnMzmnCRhvoWz046A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2011 10:03:18.0259 (UTC) FILETIME=[86CCBC30:01CC72C5]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-vs-websocket
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: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:02:06 -0000

Hi Inaki,

<snip> 

The fact that there are other alternatives for signaling in the web does not mean that using SIP is invalid.
If I want to build a SIP phone in a web, why should I use libjingle rather than SIP protocol? Why should I code a complex server behaving as a gateway between Jingle and SIP protocols?

Any protocol conversion (i.e. from Jingle to SIP) means loss of features. Our draft proposes the contrary: no protocol conversion (just SIP), and just transport protocol conversion (as already exists in SIP when bridging UDP/TCP/TLS-TCP/SCTP...).
</snip> 

I agree with your problem statement. I have raised the same concern in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg00845.html. IMO, your solution is a workaround and we will end-up with your solution in case signaling protocol is not standardized as part of RTCWeb.

Thanks
Partha



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Iñaki Baz Castillo [mailto:ibc@aliax.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:54 PM
>To: Ravindran Parthasarathi
>Cc: Bernard Aboba; markus.isomaki@nokia.com; rtcweb@ietf.org; Roman
>Shpount
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-vs-websocket
>
>2011/9/14 Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>:
>
>>         There is no need of one layer (SIP) above to create the dialog
>but
>> lightweight XML signaling mechanism works.
>
>Hi Ravindran, I've replied to a similar question in this mail (point 2):
>  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg01120.html
>
>
>Best regards.
>
>
>--
>Iñaki Baz Castillo
><ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email