IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Interest in a UDP equivalent to the CONNECT method

Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Tue, 06 February 2018 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BBB6127078 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 08:22:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.008
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 aSpmbrRek6zq for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 08:22:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48D0212E877 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 08:22:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ej5xz-00059B-Nv for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:19:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:19:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ej5xz-00059B-Nv@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <bemasc@google.com>) id 1ej5xp-00057k-Rx for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:19:21 +0000
Received: from mail-it0-f50.google.com ([209.85.214.50]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <bemasc@google.com>) id 1ej5xB-0007BS-QF for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 16:19:18 +0000
Received: by mail-it0-f50.google.com with SMTP id u12-v6so12544579ite.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 08:18:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=KkwFbFFwCmWme8juTdEqrvt4DSbnqvCWYWOj8dz+6KI=; b=ZSaSos74BGljNyAqWMx5D8WLBtAmM9PxLP1ZDHzCw9j9pb1hzHxGNTfL9TyQjGEZX4 vpq/AJkfSyC71Hr3loNxMa1ZsV524+QszHzFqM/TuGp9bSmp5qDHl4sVbmtyhkk+O6tg Yr56LzHaLrxWoBtIz8gAMdffJyRzw8xWYQcKm8XcZkyQqvTmrUIlJlkYnVxbkyEPyy58 I2ynwXRsG0l37JEynu7wK949yhWmao/JUqhg3VmcOTmxWXZthaDzeoGJiOWG5cQcQbVT lYZan0ZCtiYdXsDdreRqBeuqUR0juUkif5PsbduddTWtCDlwzbhguqEXQoMtSEAJPOih ApQQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KkwFbFFwCmWme8juTdEqrvt4DSbnqvCWYWOj8dz+6KI=; b=lWEd7W8JsOh7BZNh1EGhBg5GKIcKM763V8iEHMgdjJuJPd53C+ydx3oF4/++XSdnVi p2rSaWLLeDjQFVnX/eTet3u54ukqZcFmmbl4rHLa1hNMFdnaUj7WUmgBRSWkjH7gdQo6 AeHdyvE3lEJDnFBya91wDII9A6otbQLYSnZE+UoO8wdZdmpq6SIcXgRXegGKR23nVLGP 26I4GGiYBdJm/mk26J1KGQu3sOqmxBW2th4ly3vnDVFDZ5GddFnuOp9oZtJVKXkzpSaO 95q8wJ0MeQlImS5c0Fod8ioaBTMSTWv4T+Zmgwo6P7OLM03mKBWxvYOHLY08S2SQsGhe Uu1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPA9S/XjWnhd9WLioni3skMw08xJG1TplRfJX/piGm8sXMeTAX1d AEiadpRYV6Fg6kfusmDfWBRD9nSbT3Vqd/mPqMqX3w2ipO4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x227dpTgFU8Ew8NnR7Y72E9QAaoUiieA5jVMcsMBUT5JqLVyqJPP/yEGL7k+oSKT+qMtSCxD/oCQWUFI08rvyuIw=
X-Received: by 10.36.178.26 with SMTP id u26mr3668864ite.4.1517933900557; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 08:18:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.164.160 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 08:18:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <3D37D361-7E11-4667-A96D-DE6326C54A06@ericsson.com>
References: <7CF7F94CB496BF4FAB1676F375F9666A3BACADD6@bgb01xud1012> <CABkgnnULrBdrS3_Fh5CzAPqpUKTHZzJr50VKB3MK0tx2HAfPjw@mail.gmail.com> <7CF7F94CB496BF4FAB1676F375F9666A3BACD51F@bgb01xud1012> <3D37D361-7E11-4667-A96D-DE6326C54A06@ericsson.com>
From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 11:18:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsB3L+3oHAZs_sow4cWGiQsMj8wSd0UMAoFZ6FAr9Hoqwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
Cc: Lucas Pardue <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="f403045d914cf9491c05648d861b"
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.273, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1ej5xB-0007BS-QF b134ded472304ba1c0b56fd785aff3d7
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Interest in a UDP equivalent to the CONNECT method
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAHbrMsB3L+3oHAZs_sow4cWGiQsMj8wSd0UMAoFZ6FAr9Hoqwg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/35094
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Göran Eriksson AP <
goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 2018-02-05, 18:55, "Lucas Pardue" <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>     Martin Thomson wrote:
>
>     >I'm surprised that no one has mentioned TURN yet.  So let me be the
> first.
>
>     I'm not overly familiar with TURN. Are you saying that the
> capabilities of this new method are already fulfilled by TURN,  that TURN
> could be enabled by this method, or that there are design elements to crib
> from TURN.
>
>
> Since Ben added "WebRTC" to the discussion, Martins comment make perfect
> sense. Personally, I would be waiting for Ben to detail the "WebRTC" case
> he has in mind, which would include TURN of course, (.
>

My feeling is:
1. It would be nice for HTTP/QUIC to be self-proxying, in the same way that
HTTP/2 and its predecessors are.
2. The obvious way to do this is to add a UDP proxy method to HTTP.
3. If we're going to define a UDP proxy method, it might as well support
the other common UDP-based protocols.

As for interaction with WebRTC, I would note that right now, running WebRTC
over an HTTP proxy greatly limits the use of UDP candidates, impairing
media quality and often causing suboptimal routing (through TURN/TCP).  If
HTTP proxies could support UDP traffic (on the external interface), this
could be improved.

    The main use case I had, HTTP/QUIC, does not suffer from peer
> communication issues so I find it hard to see where TURN comes in.
>
> +1. The HTTP/QUIC case is pretty straightforward (even though use cases
> are always useful of course). "WebRTC" will require an effort to clarify
> scope and proposed solution.
>

I agree, HTTP/QUIC seems like a simpler case.  A "connection-oriented" UDP
proxy protocol (i.e. a single-destination tunnel) might suffice for
HTTP/QUIC, but it would not be convenient for WebRTC, because WebRTC (i.e.
ICE) works best when clients can receive packets from unexpected sources.
This has implications for the client<->proxy protocol.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email