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

<Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> Wed, 14 September 2011 06:57 UTC

Return-Path: <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.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 0599D21F8B70 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 UNTcBS3x7509 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-sa02.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3319621F8B52 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh101.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.22]) by mgw-sa02.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p8E6x1xr006354; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:59:07 +0300
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.7]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:58:50 +0300
Received: from 008-AM1MMR1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.59) by NOK-AM1MHUB-03.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.255.0; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:58:43 +0200
Received: from 008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com ([169.254.3.204]) by 008-AM1MMR1-004.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.59]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 08:58:43 +0200
From: Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com
To: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com, pravindran@sonusnet.com, ibc@aliax.net, rtcweb@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] draft-ibc-rtcweb-sip-vs-websocket
Thread-Index: AQHMcmEvDLfcdR4ELUe0eYbl0qA1j5VMbifw
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 06:58:43 +0000
Message-ID: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620B0243@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <CALiegfk6BhtzErXOQM8iSV7FC6isYUwOS1KPYCw_M1vEcNP6eQ@mail.gmail.com>, <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F0B37@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>, <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620AEC41@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com> <BLU152-W91B8D02E434D6209F379393050@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W91B8D02E434D6209F379393050@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [88.114.26.217]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2011 06:58:50.0415 (UTC) FILETIME=[C1D9C3F0:01CC72AB]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
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 06:57:04 -0000

Hi,

Bernard Aboba [BA] wrote:

>> If SIP is implemented in Javascript, as opposed to "natively" supported in the browser, Websocket is the best transport for it.
>
>[BA] That may be your opinion.  Others may choose to transport SIP over HTTP or HTTPS, or choose some other signaling protocol entirely (e.g. XMPP).  The beauty of RTCWEB is to enable the choice to be made by application developers according to their needs. 

People can continue using HTTP ("COMET") for this type of purposes as long as they like. I think Websockes is just a more optimal way due to smaller overhead and cleaner connection management. But it is upto the service provider, and of course availability of Websockets in browsers is an important factor too.

>> I could see a path here that the SIP server vendors should add SIP over WebSockets in their arsenal of transport options

>[BA] They might do that, or they could choose to have a "Connection Manager" (e.g. something that speaks SIP over Websockets on one side, and SIP over TCP on the other) do the encapsulation/decapsulation.  

Right. I suppose there are these type of things for XMPP already, i.e. speaking XMPP over BOSH/HTTP one way and XMPP over TCP the other. The same could be useful for SIP, if Javascript SIP stacks gain popularity. (They are certainly popular on this list, but I'm not sure if that is a good measure of the "real world" :-). People could make their deployments without a formal standardization of SIP over HTTP or SIP over Websockets too, at least as long as the Javascript stack and the "connection manager" came from the same provider. Hmm, perhaps that is good enough. 

Markus