IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 27 June 2014 22:08 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 C7D541A01F7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:08:46 -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 1ZsLZYDRIYlB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:08:45 -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 E8CE61A01F4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1X0eHS-0006OA-CY for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 22:06:02 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 22:06:02 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1X0eHS-0006OA-CY@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1X0eH9-0006Mf-TT for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 22:05:43 +0000
Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1X0eH9-0002Cs-1H for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 22:05:43 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id z12so5538496wgg.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=asaF6ehADaYUXSFe7V9Z76/VJGHpG3vvA3Aq268u6Ow=; b=gKYiwdhs9B9h+dKnqFIcOVl5Hvbjt4lqVM9ZsyaQYlsRVKbI4kE4O32qmD4HGibJPu lx7Y8m6SZg3Kkc/NCdWgeb+gjN2qf3XaDIJB8rGjJHzJ9WvjiWGnrz/BSAd44RwqOpIV CNsLgsOp0rWAx0AxdVyDYDU3Oyq3vdTFMKHqKVsvODJpqOHg6iPUxa1XmrOM8BAxoAQI SMmCFuJNThwn6cypN/6NdRVCxt0ByefpBFgK2zXGja6YIIVrktWSXCp5oNnblwpDRwAL FodY8yeqtMsrqxFSrf9bqQRrAMOxK8GAFe0N04Ac/YYLABukslftGB+pBxyVBiRkVgWQ /FWA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.13.230 with SMTP id k6mr14416940wic.1.1403906716836; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.51.134 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53ADE23E.60702@gmail.com>
References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17E0CF30@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <53AD3E6E.7090604@gmail.com> <CABkgnnW62779JEhfDrkevUJRcF38w=2gED2wCghptJdiROD8fA@mail.gmail.com> <53ADE23E.60702@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:05:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWkt5E3q3VncFcv9rgquYy7uraOhoH+aXmyktF2JM3jtw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.42; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f42.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.735, 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 1X0eH9-0002Cs-1H e65f8a2906a7fdf6edd877c235ef3506
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnWkt5E3q3VncFcv9rgquYy7uraOhoH+aXmyktF2JM3jtw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/24808
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>

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email