[pntaw] FW: [rtcweb] ICE TCP Candidates and SCTP DataChannels ?

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Fri, 03 January 2014 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
X-Original-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7F81ADEB7 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 08:00:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xa5wp4n3RPmk for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 08:00:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mailhostbox.com (outbound-us3.mailhostbox.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FEC01ADFEC for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 08:00:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userPC (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by smtp.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 46A50868604; Fri, 3 Jan 2014 16:00:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1388764812; bh=ErCAP7pthyJmz0+JUqXLhRfaYx9Qpsc4IwWLd1Y+rFM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=N8BSnL3CFdjbk0Ak5yZwvBxByWPS6Ihquvw+qE3wZl9s7rKfAmyeCTjTcy/eJxNBO 9Xf52jzfqp/IiYWH2QLozYrqRh9vsxhL4zc9DVXApB5GJ6LIn2Rdrtyn71mbVSZqJO qSNiUqfj5JNskpbLvAsKXUzX+oUCgKU7AMvhbeKM=
From: "Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: <pntaw@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 21:29:54 +0530
Message-ID: <000601cf089c$d9fd4bd0$8df7e370$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac8IVQec1IvFm6HRSCyjWxeYfqUhwwARoLswAABLCdA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A02020A.52C6DE8C.0087, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.000
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 2
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?'Olivier_Cr=C3=AAte'?= <olivier.crete@collabora.com>
Subject: [pntaw] FW: [rtcweb] ICE TCP Candidates and SCTP DataChannels ?
X-BeenThere: pntaw@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for practices related to proxies, NATs, TURN, and WebRTC" <pntaw.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pntaw>, <mailto:pntaw-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pntaw/>
List-Post: <mailto:pntaw@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pntaw-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw>, <mailto:pntaw-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 16:00:25 -0000

Forwarding to PNTAW mailing alias for more discussion

-----Original Message-----
From: Parthasarathi R [mailto:partha@parthasarathi.co.in] 
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 9:28 PM
To: 'Olivier Crête'; 'rtcweb@ietf.org'
Subject: RE: [rtcweb] ICE TCP Candidates and SCTP DataChannels ?

Hi Olivier,

Irrespective of TURN or ICE-TCP, SCTP over DTLS over TURN/RFC 4571 over TCP has to be supported in case SCTP datachannel mechanism has to be traversed through firewall. The similar discussion happened earlier in PNTAW and the related mail thread is http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pntaw/current/msg00144.html.

I think that it is better to discuss in detail in pntaw alias about this issue. I'll forward this mail to pntaw alias for more discussion.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Olivier
> Crête
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2014 12:55 PM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: [rtcweb] ICE TCP Candidates and SCTP DataChannels ?
> Hello,
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 mentions ICE TCP Candidates [RFC6062],
> but there is no mention of how they integrated with the SCTP-based data
> channels? ICE-TCP seems to be a good match for ordered reliable
> channels, as I expect these will be the most common. Is there any plans
> to support those? Or to do something akin to RFC 4571 framing to put
> SCTP in an ICE-TCP connection? Then that raises the question of DTLS,
> would we want to do SCTP-over-DTLS-over-rfc4571-over-TCP or
> SCTP-over-rfc4571-over-TLS-over-TCP ?
> --
> Olivier Crête
> olivier.crete@collabora.com
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb