Re: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser application with separate webserver & voipserver
"Ravindran Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com> Mon, 05 September 2011 19:14 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 81B4B21F8BA6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:14:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.478
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 oicGBV0mCk3T for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ma01.sonusnet.com (sonussf2.sonusnet.com [208.45.178.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45CB821F8B80 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:14:29 -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 p85JGeJm019674; Mon, 5 Sep 2011 15:16:41 -0400
Received: from sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.30]) by sonusmail05.sonusnet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 5 Sep 2011 15:16:11 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC6C00.43F4AACE"
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 00:46:08 +0530
Message-ID: <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF51064707@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLU152-W72696F07F16816B1B267593100@phx.gbl>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser application with separate webserver & voipserver
Thread-Index: Acxjrn+fkEqucGj3QAyVQKFs0Fq8LwITx5QQ
References: <CAM_kxqci51=BnUFe-67Qs4eCxtGY50HDsRPrLjYULnBZJoH0Ow@mail.gmail.com>, <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF5106436F@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <BLU152-W72696F07F16816B1B267593100@phx.gbl>
From: Ravindran Parthasarathi <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, hoang.su.tk@gmail.com, rtcweb@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Sep 2011 19:16:11.0435 (UTC) FILETIME=[45D5EFB0:01CC6C00]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser application with separate webserver & voipserver
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, 05 Sep 2011 19:14:30 -0000
Bernard, Sorry for the delay reply. There is a huge difference between tunneling the protocol and converting the protocol from one format to another. The tunneling works well only in case the destination support the tunneled data without negotiation. It will be bad assumption in case the standard does not defined so. For example, 1) Browser A supports Jingle (XMPP for real-time data) and encapsulates the data in HTTP and send it to webserver1 2) RTCwebserver1 tunnel jingle data in SIP and sends it to RTCwebserver2 3) RTCwebserver2 does not support Jingle towards browser but it support some other variant of HTTP based metadata to the browser. My question is how webserver2 do perform the interop correctly in case Jingle is not mandated as metadata standard mechanism. Please let me know your opinion here. My understanding was that RTCwebserver1 may use some proprietary mechanism (may be jingle) to communicate between browser and webserver which will be converted into RFC 3261 SIP at webserver1 and forwarded to RTCwebserver2. RTCWebserver2 converts back SIP to its own proprietary metadata to communicate with browser. This mechanism works well but still better mechanism exists. Thanks Partha From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 12:35 AM To: Ravindran Parthasarathi; hoang.su.tk@gmail.com; rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Some misunderstandings about <Usecase & architecture: Browser application with separate webserver & voipserver> > The issue in case webserver acts as new RTCWEB & SIP GW for VoIP > communication, there is a need of protocol mapping between the protocol > used between browser & RTCWebserver (say RTCweb protocol) to SIP. [BA] Not necessarily. For example, in the case of XMPP, BOSH can be used to encapsulate XMPP over HTTP. The BOSH Connection Manager/Web server does not do "mapping", it just encapsulates/decapsulates XMPP stanzas, enabling communication between XMPP clients supporting BOSH and XMPP servers. This be handled entirely in Javascript with no native support for XMPP. For detailed examples of how this works (with sample code), please see: http://professionalxmpp.com/
- [rtcweb] Some misunderstandings about <Usecase & … Nguyen Duong Tuan
- Re: [rtcweb] Some misunderstandings about <Usecas… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Some misunderstandings about <Usecas… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Some misunderstandings about <Usecas… Nguyen Duong Tuan
- Re: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser appl… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser appl… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser appl… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser appl… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Usecase & architecture: Browser appl… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecase & … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Asveren, Tolga
- Re: [rtcweb] Bridged line appearance? (Re: Usecas… Paul Kyzivat