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

["Ravindran Parthasarathi" <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf
>Of Dzonatas Sol
>Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 10:44 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb