IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com> Tue, 01 July 2014 14:35 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 2FD651B2804 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 07:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, 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 Ans3yKv4B532 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 07:35:52 -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 1DD3D1B27F7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 07:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1X1z7s-0002Bh-8D for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:33:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:33:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1X1z7s-0002Bh-8D@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 1X1z7p-0002Ax-Nf for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:33:37 +0000
Received: from mx11.unify.com ([62.134.46.9]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <andrew.hutton@unify.com>) id 1X1z7o-0006mO-Oy for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:33:37 +0000
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by mx11.unify.com (Server) with ESMTP id 7BFCD1EB8512; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:33:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.120]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:33:14 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPkiXa5bnzJp6nL0GR/Q7sAjMPQpuFV/QAgAAJ+QCAA+PagIAAcm6AgAGFqdA=
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 14:33:13 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17E112C5@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>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnW73D3-dFb3=uJr8WvanYsUPTbj=JznfVxrMTbnyL-YXA@mail.gmail.com>
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=62.134.46.9; envelope-from=andrew.hutton@unify.com; helo=mx11.unify.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.945, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1X1z7o-0006mO-Oy 16549ac381ee894f10d78ade249b2d4f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17E112C5@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/24912
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 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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email