Re: [pntaw] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-03.txt

I have a comment on section 5 of the document.

One thing that I'd definitely like to see enforced in the browser's
implementation of the TURN client protocol is the support of 300 Alternate
Server error message. This is becoming an issue because of the possible
volume of the WebRTC media traffic. If the browsers are supporting the
error 300, then a TURN server administrator can relatively easy set a load
balancing scheme. If the browsers do not support it, then it becomes a more
complicated issue and an implementation-dependent procedure.

As far as I know, no current browser supports 300 response from TURN
server. It would be very nice if the TURN server administrator could rely
on that feature.

Oleg

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@unify.com>wrote:

> I updated draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-consideration.
>
> The main change is that the draft now explores the different options that
> are available for handling such things as HTTP Proxies in a WebRTC
> environment and no longer recommends a specific solution.
>
> Would be good to restart the discussion on these options and determining
> the best way forward to ensuring we get some defined standardized behavior
> for WebRTC for these scenarios.
>
> So please go ahead and make comments.
>
> Regards
> Andy
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: 20 January 2014 11:35
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-03.txt
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>
>         Title           : RTCWEB Considerations for NATs, Firewalls and
> HTTP proxies
>         Authors         : Thomas Stach
>                           Andrew Hutton
>                           Justin Uberti
>         Filename        :
> draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-03.txt
>         Pages           : 14
>         Date            : 2014-01-20
>
> Abstract:
>    This document describes mechanism to enable media stream
>    establishment for Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers (WebRTC) in
>    the presence of network address translators, firewalls and HTTP
>    proxies.  HTTP proxy and firewall deployed in many private network
>    domains introduce obstacles to the successful establishment of media
>    stream via WebRTC.  This document examines some of these deployment
>    scenarios and specifies requirements on WebRTC enabled web browsers
>    designed to provide the best possible chance of media connectivity
>    between WebRTC peers.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-03
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-03
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> _______________________________________________
> pntaw mailing list
> pntaw@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
>