IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Mon, 30 June 2014 09:33 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 6663D1A01D6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.653
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 kDkYmhcPjfhM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:33:03 -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 070F81A01D2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:33:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1X1Xul-0001Nf-Bp for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:30:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:30:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1X1Xul-0001Nf-Bp@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>) id 1X1XuO-0006qO-Ti for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:29:56 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f173.google.com ([209.85.212.173]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>) id 1X1XuO-0000Qp-4r for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 09:29:56 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id cc10so5664645wib.6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hYaqrbIAbpB0iWW0S+n8suKtiWW2skM+AXY1O5fKmBU=; b=n5sCrTWfwirhYcVNYSLxs8yp6Dbg+jbzfL3EQ9HeSATRda9CPqTEx3AgbiIPl2gYxg GeDM9qoiAC9KVXTCtc2RszByp8aNNs9zp2gHU0UFBdJLKHmDpQkjZgmCVXjFKjTQQyYz P/P8iN0UANENVSdgDjsDWEnZn7GCrxo3ShBr3vh1HDUx8RBq74Ciep9qJtZQjHkTqunj znnznvL3AHuZUd1T/YxHoYvCX6bmK50LZ5nZfEd2bk6vuGGdplUTzH+BsypokfHlDbiD 6jMEx/YmpMj3sVQM/wC6bMqM00uLcEb4TkabX3VW+7RL6LSpNZc54HtfdfNzJa/xLgyV B3VQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.92.138 with SMTP id cm10mr27876527wib.36.1404120569966; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.44] (207.Red-79-146-136.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [79.146.136.207]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d4sm11801726wik.20.2014.06.30.02.29.28 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 02:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53B12DFD.4070109@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:29:33 +0200
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17E0CF30@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <53AD3E6E.7090604@gmail.com> <CABkgnnW62779JEhfDrkevUJRcF38w=2gED2wCghptJdiROD8fA@mail.gmail.com> <53ADE23E.60702@gmail.com> <CABkgnnWkt5E3q3VncFcv9rgquYy7uraOhoH+aXmyktF2JM3jtw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWkt5E3q3VncFcv9rgquYy7uraOhoH+aXmyktF2JM3jtw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.212.173; envelope-from=sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.767, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1X1XuO-0000Qp-4r 241be3224e33d65a8221ba0e8f314862
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/53B12DFD.4070109@gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/24819
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>

El 28/06/2014 0:05, Martin Thomson escribió:
> On 27 June 2014 14:29, Sergio Garcia Murillo
> <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mainly because there is not such a thing as a webrtc protocol per se, and
>> ICE-TCP may be used by non-webrtc applications.
> This is covered in the draft that is referenced.  "webrtc" is just a
> token that means: ICE *AND* DTLS + SCTP + Data Channel Protocol
> multiplexed with SRTP (see
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports, which defines
> the protocol set; and
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-rtcweb-alpn, which defines
> the token).
>
>> Also, I think it is not coherent because you are calling "turn" subprotocol to TURN tunneled over an HTTP CONNECT. So, following your reasoning, you should call it "webrtc" , given that TURN isn't inherently useful, after all.
> Yes, I think that I would prefer this.  I think that I did raise that
> point, or should have.  I didn't really get the time to follow up, so
> thanks for highlighting this.

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?

Best regards
Sergio

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email