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

"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Mon, 12 September 2011 18:39 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 4EB5421F8C5E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.505
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.906, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_25=1, J_BACKHAIR_53=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 fTnYPpFYnGYc for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDA721F8BA9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonusmail05.sonusnet.com (sonusmail05.sonusnet.com [10.128.32.155]) by sonuspps2.sonusnet.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8CIgKdY000884; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:42:20 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail05.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:41:50 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:11:47 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0AA1@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E6E3DEE.8080200@gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] SIP vs Websocket in RTCWeb [was RE: SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?]
Thread-Index: AcxxbyiI1ZGw8iMET8KpIUdoCLDKQAACygIg
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0B00FDB08B@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <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><4E661C83.5000103@alcatel-lucent.com> <4E668FB3.9020601@skype.net><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F08FE@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E67AD3D.9000005@alvestrand.no><2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F090F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E686663.1050900@alvestrand.no><4E68CB68.3020100@alcatel-lucent.com><4E68D182.2090003@alvestrand.no><4E68D742.4010203@alcatel-lucent.com><4E68D8B5.7010602@alvestrand.no><4E6915F2.5000007@alcatel-lucent.com> <4E691CC6.9050905@stpeter.im> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0A19@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com><4E6E2B5F.7030307@stpeter.im> <4E6E3DEE.8080200@gmail.c om>
From: "Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: "Dzonatas Sol" <dzonatas@gmail.com>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Sep 2011 18:41:50.0151 (UTC) FILETIME=[A21B3570:01CC717B]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SIP vs Websocket in RTCWeb [was RE: SIP MUST NOT be used in browser?]
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: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:39:51 -0000

Peter,

<snip> > 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.
</snip>

Sec 4.2.5 of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-04 includes
the usecase for federation. My assumption is based on this usecases.
Till now, there is no better protocol than SIP exists for this
discussion.

> Some s2s links might use SIP, some might use XMPP/Jingle, etc.
> </snip>

I agree with you that signaling interop is not focus of RTCWeb and only
one webserver is solution space then your solution looks like working.
Even then, I prefer single signaling protocol rather than ad-hoc
signaling protocol by each web developer.

Dzonatas,

I lean towards SIP federation because of the maturity of the SIP
protocol. Last 10 years of bug fix in SIP stack makes it more stable now
:-) 

Thanks
Partha


>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf
>Of Dzonatas Sol
>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 10:44 PM
>To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SIP vs Websocket in RTCWeb [was RE: SIP MUST NOT
>be used in browser?]
>
>On 09/12/2011 08:55 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>Yesterday I thought browser-hints could help with transitions to
>federation, especially for RTCWeb-to-SIP:
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-browser-hints-02
>
>Thanks.
>
>--
>--- http://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
>Web Development, Software Engineering
>Ag-Biotech, Virtual Reality, Consultant
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb