Re: [pntaw] TURN over websockets or just TURN.

Sergio Garcia Murillo <> Wed, 25 September 2013 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFFEF11E810D for <>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 06:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.537
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SO2Pw2smInUv for <>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 06:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9F421F9FB6 for <>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 06:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k14so6110309wgh.25 for <>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 06:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OjG6PY7dNGtRXQqVjIAUqgzNkVKw1kiRbwhjeLHF358=; b=GCdnhHP4pLmG4tlPVNoDigEQ/qImpdkQUcopk4vAeFuhlRfPqGy5OoiJsUr/HhTpiL jLVExky26D2UuZL0i/GakVfBgh5cPY0f67zMMvqi1eXV6+Ol86gFHU7SUxHbAxMYMdv1 kbWVXP73gVOCt/V5iwKUPbWCXCzGHaleSmIzSiDKgQQVvVLSfngcszqBcQxfOR/uK4YD W3oSlW1IYl5CKM7Rrivypi+sc+mQCPWt5oNBxHoWdb/CBPZPx0SsVoNB4flFjhiNp4Dt bFOkOwkRhUsU6BaB0FlGich6/S6Ui+UY3B8tC+g38L8FOGxhsv5OtdBOY2aX8wJQSJmY 3QpA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id f1mr22535293wiz.33.1380115503722; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 06:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id i8sm17949727wib.1.1969. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 25 Sep 2013 06:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 15:25:01 +0200
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <>
References: <> <>, <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [pntaw] TURN over websockets or just TURN.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for practices related to proxies, NATs, TURN, and WebRTC" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:25:07 -0000

El 25/09/2013 13:00, Hutton, Andrew escribió:
> At least according to RFC 6455 the use of HTTP CONNECT for websockets is independent of whether the connection is secure or not.
Hi Andy,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but would browsers still do an HTTP 
connect for http 1.1 request? I thought it was only for HTTPS requests.

Anyway, the argument is still the same, turn over websockets will work 
on every scenario where turn over tls works, and in addition it may work 
in some others. Also, given that most people are using websockets for 
signaling anyway, we will ensure that in 100% of the cases if signaling 
over websockets works, media over websockets will work (except if 
explicitly forbidden by enterprises policies).

We can argue later if the percentage of cases additionally covered by 
turn over ws is significant enough so it is worthy to add a new protocol 
and change both clients and server (while I see that other initiatives 
are requiring it already). But I think that at least having an 
alternative proposal is a good thing.

Best regards