RE: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com> Mon, 28 July 2014 10:32 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E4741A03B9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 03:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XCUtBRJdrraE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 03:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCF811A03A8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 03:32:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XBiBW-0004Ow-A5 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:29:38 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:29:38 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XBiBW-0004Ow-A5@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <andrew.hutton@unify.com>) id 1XBiBD-0004MY-4D for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:29:19 +0000
Received: from mx12.unify.com ([62.134.46.10]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <andrew.hutton@unify.com>) id 1XBiBB-0005Fn-Qu for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:29:19 +0000
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by mx12.unify.com (Server) with ESMTP id ACAC923F048D for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:28:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.120]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:28:56 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPkiXa5bnzJp6nL0GR/Q7sAjMPQpuFV/QAgAAJ+QCAA+PagIAAcm6AgAGFqdCAKjZcEA==
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 10:28:55 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17E3737F@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17E0CF30@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <53AD3E6E.7090604@gmail.com> <CABkgnnW62779JEhfDrkevUJRcF38w=2gED2wCghptJdiROD8fA@mail.gmail.com> <53ADE23E.60702@gmail.com> <CABkgnnWkt5E3q3VncFcv9rgquYy7uraOhoH+aXmyktF2JM3jtw@mail.gmail.com> <53B12DFD.4070109@gmail.com> <CABkgnnW73D3-dFb3=uJr8WvanYsUPTbj=JznfVxrMTbnyL-YXA@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17E112C5@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17E112C5@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: none client-ip=62.134.46.10; envelope-from=andrew.hutton@unify.com; helo=mx12.unify.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.648, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XBiBB-0005Fn-Qu 14a08890ae7fed35b148fa1180f0bf90
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17E3737F@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26409
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Thanks to everybody who provided feedback on this draft during the session in Toronto last week. During the following RTCWEB session in Toronto we discussed referencing this draft in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-05 and it looks like RTCWEB has consensus to do this as long as HTTPBis intends to adopt the draft. So I would like to understand what needs to be done to move this forward in HTTPBis. It seems that the concept of including an indication that the application/protocol is WebRTC and therefore the proxy can expect real-time media in the tunnel is accepted but there are some open issues around the name of the header and exactly what labels to use. I personally would be ok with the header name being either "Tunneled-Application" or "Tunnel-Protocol" and that for webrtc purposes a single label "webrtc" taken from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn-00 would be ok. Note the -rtcweb-alpn- draft was adopted by RTCWEB last week. Regards Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: Hutton, Andrew [mailto:andrew.hutton@unify.com] > Sent: 01 July 2014 15:33 > To: Martin Thomson; Sergio Garcia Murillo > Cc: HTTP Working Group > Subject: RE: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt > > Thanks for the feedback. > > I think the question that needs to be answered is what does the proxy > really need to know if it is going to make some policy decision based > on what is in this header. > > It me be that the fact that the application is using TURN or ICE-TCP to > connect to a WebRTC peer is irrelevant to the proxy and that what is > really relevant is that "WebRTC" is the application. This tells the > proxy something about what it can expect within the tunnel (I.e. real- > time media). > > I that case I would probably support a single token for "webrtc". > > For some non WebRTC applications it maybe that "turn" is a generic > label that is useful to indicate to the proxy that what to expect > within the tunnel but maybe that should not be within the scope of this > draft. > > I would be ok with "Tunneled-Application" if the consensus is that that > is better. > > Regards > Andy > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] > > Sent: 30 June 2014 17:19 > > To: Sergio Garcia Murillo > > Cc: HTTP Working Group > > Subject: Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt > > > > On 30 June 2014 02:29, Sergio Garcia Murillo > > <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In case of using just one token (i.e. "webrtc"), then I think what > is > > > misleading for me is the header name. IMHO if we are talking about > > > protocols, they are ice and turn, if we are talking about webrtc, > > then it is > > > something different. How about Tunneled-Application or > > > Tunneled-Application-Protocol? > > > > It's still a protocol. But I have no objection to the former, some > > small objection to the latter, but only with respect to verbosity.
- RE: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt Martin Thomson
- Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt Martin Thomson
- Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.… Martin Thomson
- Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt Martin Thomson
- RE: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt Hutton, Andrew
- RE: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt Hutton, Andrew