Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Mon, 14 October 2013 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD1521E8177 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n7UjINjWIy5X for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED37421E80D0 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id b13so6293715wgh.15 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:58:03 -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:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cJSbQ30uYr5sLEA3FHV1cVevohPprgPcYFF6uHXLhC8=; b=LPavcf41dnJZ3mE12ruv/g40Oh4YueP6tbF8AT7uWaDsLwLRpkk8Sc8cyHpD2wGE5J Inun0ns5f7pta2U61G+jfA049QFRgD1ZPiWC9Qs+Dy81FofLxdG53js0jGP9/WtA12aN 2bIR+9JUiAMkJQY2rrcbyr39l5wm/PRzTLITidBCT4JDrgGGXvlAIELFYQ8ws3EPOV7o mMNu3D3qt05Vc+UBV4x6ULO8EYMLKQ+uj1wOD7CTq4E8PW8sTSVzQ12EJ/T55egRE7VY egdCRJbdBOZZngt60D0GsldxojdXFvXKlE4dERM6/UBz+5osMaGvCqkEwsSto1rD0gLD EHBg==
X-Received: by 10.194.60.73 with SMTP id f9mr1879458wjr.65.1381766282993; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.45] (25.Red-79-153-32.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [79.153.32.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dl10sm36024484wib.1.2013.10.14.08.58.00 for <pntaw@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:58:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <525C148F.8070502@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:58:07 +0200
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pntaw@ietf.org
References: <CAGTXFp92jSzQz05uHngzscz88n=fT_JPbEvQRxgeUUqPVRQUyQ@mail.gmail.com> <52244DD7.1020900@alvestrand.no> <BLU405-EAS183E36A927CA42270B6936D93300@phx.gbl> <522590EE.7070508@alvestrand.no> <C632A223-A55A-47F4-B083-9BDC447DA959@cisco.com> <52262657.3080208@alvestrand.no> <A2C315DB-1882-4BD1-A8C0-E8AF7DEA48F4@cisco.com> <00ca01cec387$f881cae0$e98560a0$@co.in> <BLU406-EAS274696C3D9DFE505F96B8E393130@phx.gbl> <004201cec44f$381a47f0$a84ed7d0$@co.in> <52544E0E.5080405@viagenie.ca> <003b01cec511$27e1abe0$77a503a0$@co.in> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A0D672F@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com> <9E34D50A21D1D1489134B4D770CE039768081AC9@SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com> <004e01cec5df$cf8daaf0$6ea900d0$@co.in> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A0E2DC6@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BEFB3E@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <BLU402-EAS357ECBFC621A567B9D3A7B4931A0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU402-EAS357ECBFC621A567B9D3A7B4931A0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [pntaw] Real-time media over TCP
X-BeenThere: pntaw@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:58:16 -0000

+1,

IMO 6) will only have some benefits in the case one of the endpoint been 
a gateway, but you would still have to deal with 5), so you won't avoid 
needing a TURN server (in any of its flavors ;)

BR
Sergio
El 14/10/2013 17:08, Bernard Aboba escribió:
> Agree on Markus's summary. I am also not convinced on #6 being a MUST because so far there hasn't been a compelling use case.
>
>> On Oct 14, 2013, at 7:42 AM, "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>; wrote:
>>
>> On: 11 October 2013 13:22  Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com Wrote
>>
>>
>>> So, what is the overall set of traversal / connectivity / address
>>> gathering mechanisms the browser should support that you are
>>> advocating? Mine is:
>>>
>>> 1.) UDP host candidates (native interface) - MUST
>>> 2.)UDP server-reflexive candidates (STUN) - MUST
>>> 3.) UDP relay candidates via UDP (TURN) - MUST
>>> 4.) UDP relay candidates via TCP (TURN) - MUST
>>> 5.) UDP relay candidates via some HTTP/TLS compatible transport (TURN)
>>> - MUST/SHOULD
>>>    (TLS via HTTP CONNET or TURN over WebSockets have been proposed.)
>>> 6.) TCP based candidates (ICE-TCP) - MAY/SHOULD
>>>
>>> I believe 1.), 2.) and 3.) we all have consensus on, probably even on
>>> 4.). What we are discussing on this list is whether and how to do 5.),
>>> and how important 6.) is.
>>>
>>> My opinion is that 5.) becomes necessary due to the HTTP-limited
>>> environments you mention above. So the communication needs to be
>>> compliant with HTTP and its upgrade mechanisms. 6.) I see as an
>>> optimization to 4.) in cases where you can't do UDP but can establish
>>> outgoing TCP connections and the other peer can actually receive them.
>>> But that optimization does not hold very often, since most of the time
>>> browsers are in networks where they can't receive TCP connections from
>>> the "outside world". So that's why I see it as MAY or SHOULD. You may
>>> argue that often browsers may talk to gateways or central points that
>>> are reachable by TCP, and in those scenarios ICE-TCP might make sense.
>> Totally agree with the nice summary above and agree that 5) is necessary we have use cases in draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements that say we do. We need some mechanism that is HTTP compatible and we have these two options available and to me there is very little difference between them it is just a matter of whether the use of the additional websockets layers give us any benefit. I am not convinced that 6) is needed but might be some corner cases it satisfies.
>>
>> Andy
>> _______________________________________________
>> pntaw mailing list
>> pntaw@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
> _______________________________________________
> pntaw mailing list
> pntaw@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw