Re: [rtcweb] SIP vs Websocket in RTCWeb [was RE: SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?]

Peter Saint-Andre <> Mon, 12 September 2011 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF0A21F8BB8 for <>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.05
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.05 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.451, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_53=1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RWlhrRDYhySF for <>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBB021F8511 for <>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4FC841959; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:58:22 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 09:55:11 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ravindran Parthasarathi <>
References: <> <> <> <><> <> <> <><> <><><><><><><><><><> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.1
OpenPGP: url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SIP vs Websocket in RTCWeb [was RE: SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:53:09 -0000

On 9/12/11 12:57 AM, Ravindran Parthasarathi wrote:
> Changing the title for giving the clear context of discussion.
> Peter,
> Thanks for forwarding info about draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol. I
> started this mail thread to know whether RTCWeb1.0 is a unofficial
> RFC3261bis for the line side (endpoint to access server) :-) [I really
> don't know the better term for the line side]. Endpoint may be desktop,
> smart phone (android), laptop, tablet, CPE, etc.,
> Till reading this draft, I assumed websocket as a socket layer for HTTP
> and it is bad assumption :-(. In short, browser is able to create two
> way communication with webserver (which has globally routable address).
> Two browser creating websocket with web servers will be able to
> communicate with each other. This architecture exactly fits in SIP world
> as
>                        SIP UA <---->B2BUA<----->SIP UA
> And resultant as   browser<---> webserver <----> browser. I tend to
> agree with you that Websocket looks as a better choice for this simple
> web architecture as there is no need of identity exchange here because
> webserver knows and authenticated both browsers with the corresponding
> identity. In fact, B2BUA with globally routable address will interop
> better with any endpoint for that matter. The difference comes into
> picture for federation (interop between servers). I'm not very clear
> whether websocket is intended for federation as well or not. Most of the
> discussion RTCWeb points to use SIP as a federation protocol which may
> change later. I'm interested knowing your view here. For this mail, I
> assume that SIP as a federation protocol of RTCWeb1.0 and I'm ready to
> change if it is the right thing to do :-)

I think that the protocol used for server-to-server federation is a
matter for the service providers and thus is not in scope for RTCWeb.
Some s2s links might use SIP, some might use XMPP/Jingle, etc.


Peter Saint-Andre