<div>Agreed.</div><br clear="all"><span style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;border-collapse:collapse;color:rgb(148, 54, 52);line-height:14px"><b><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-weight:normal;font-size:13px"><font color="#943634"><span style="font-size:small"><b><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-weight:normal;font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:14px;color:rgb(148, 54, 52)">Erik Lagerway</span><b><span style="font-size:9pt;line-height:13px;color:red"> </span></b><span style="color:gray;line-height:13px;font-size:9pt">| hookflash | </span><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:12px;color:gray">m. 604.562.8647 |</span><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:12px"><font color="#0000FF"> <a href="http://www.hookflash.com" target="_blank">www.hookflash.com</a></font></span></span></b></span></font></span></b></span><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Henry Sinnreich <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:henry.sinnreich@gmail.com">henry.sinnreich@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div>
<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:13pt"><div class="im">>Hmm, not convinced that SIP via JS or remote would perform adequately but certainly agree that we need to get on with it.<br>
<br></div>
Could not agree with you more Erik on the need for SIP signaling compatibility, was just trying to avoid the “Flash” word :-)<br>
Which I believe would work not just fine, but also be the best of the breed.<br>
I hope we don’t discuss this here any more however since this list is about de jure standards. <br>
<br>
The main issue is to avoid the Chronos effect by constraining the API standard with the 1990s limitations of SIP and XMPP.<br>
And also avoid the rat hole of discussing SIP vs. XMPP. <br><font color="#888888">
<br>
Henry</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 1/31/11 12:32 PM, "Erik Lagerway" <<a href="http://erik@hookflash.com" target="_blank">erik@hookflash.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div></div></span></font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:13pt">Hmm, not convinced that SIP via JS or remote would perform adequately but certainly agree that we need to get on with it.<br>
<br>
-Erik<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Henry Sinnreich <<a href="http://henry.sinnreich@gmail.com" target="_blank">henry.sinnreich@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</span></font><blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:13pt">+1<br>
<br>
> The SIP implementation can live<br>
> in the JavaScript, up in the web server, in a separate gateway, or any<br>
> combination thereof.<br>
<br>
Or even in a browser add-in, perish the thought :-)<br>
<br>
The main point here is to avoid the Chronos effect from SIP and XMPP<br>
(has to do with avoiding competition from the children by eating them, as<br>
described in the book "The Master Switch" by Tim Wu).<br>
<br>
Thanks, Henry<br>
<br>
<br>
On 1/31/11 10:12 AM, "Matthew Kaufman" <<a href="http://matthew.kaufman@skype.net" target="_blank">matthew.kaufman@skype.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 1/29/2011 6:35 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> That said, even if one asks the question of whether it is a good idea<br>
>> for us to pick something, I think the answer is no. The enormous<br>
>> benefit of the web model is its ability for innovation and velocity.<br>
>> Standardization is not needed for communications within the domain of<br>
>> the provider; new features can be developed and deployed as quickly as<br>
>> they can be conceived.<br>
><br>
> Agreed. Consider the case of Gmail (or any other web-based email)<br>
><br>
> Did every web browser on the planet need to be upgraded to speak IMAP or<br>
> SMTP in order for Gmail to be implemented? No.<br>
><br>
> Does the JavaScript that Gmail sends down to your browser in order to<br>
> implement its UI need to be standardized among web email platforms? No.<br>
><br>
> Does Google need to use the same JavaScript libraries and PHP back-end<br>
> that SquirrelMail uses in order to implement a web email application? No.<br>
><br>
> Can Google change that JavaScript tomorrow without breaking<br>
> interoperability? Yes, and they probably will.<br>
><br>
> But could Gmail be as successful without the worldwide SMTP<br>
> infrastructure it ties in to? Probably not.<br>
><br>
> I see the same situation here. A web browser with real-time<br>
> communication capabilities will work in conjunction with a web site that<br>
> serves up the HTML and JavaScript that makes up the calling application.<br>
> For some applications, this will be sufficient. For others, one will<br>
> want to implement SIP or XMPP/Jingle or something else in order to<br>
> gateway these calls to other networks. The SIP implementation can live<br>
> in the JavaScript, up in the web server, in a separate gateway, or any<br>
> combination thereof.<br>
><br>
> Matthew Kaufman<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> dispatch mailing list<br>
> <a href="http://dispatch@ietf.org" target="_blank">dispatch@ietf.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RTC-Web mailing list<br>
<a href="http://RTC-Web@alvestrand.no" target="_blank">RTC-Web@alvestrand.no</a><br>
<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web</a><br>
</span></font></blockquote><font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size:13pt"><br>
<br>
</span></font></blockquote>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>