IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pntaw] New version of TURN over websockets draft

Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com> Fri, 20 September 2013 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mom040267@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 A69F521F9E52 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:01:16 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 IH-9jnYrOEVd for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22f.google.com (mail-pb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226C821F9E43 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id rr4so877781pbb.20 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=cLdSejIgBIA+jX9SgSg9RBhAR0t0P8n6dd4Wo/Ytp6o=; b=FkO1DrAREPr/DBAu1c/x7IwiTfT6EmgDoOgizNCfioGiMgshjKnbgPL6+6xaPdoXlU aDYBDCcoX6R7/q+Qc4jwzaisrxW9qsKGI9tl6L1624yebSSf03PykF7NSW0UxTY78pnU vcl/eWFw5MbIhdBCHaMEjudcr+xjG4HrYzQHppjiQ7NC8ta/FloPFfadHd0BGEtFdGIx RMttrMcm4iC6EVEsG5bPQyOUwmOaF0jAcqKAAtRK3bpL94auQdw4R7eXg3+IUFSYDj7X IuQeuKRepoC/HMnxjdpJ9dwFlcJ7pvnHtb1vf7MlRnPa6pf2vLimhaq9kiM8MHDLqPix INgw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.196.138 with SMTP id im10mr10039981pbc.127.1379714475859; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.129.138 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:01:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <523CBD39.8000408@gmail.com>
References: <5232C18C.1030102@gmail.com> <523C8BDC.6050705@petit-huguenin.org> <CALDtMrKwygUqNWKcB81F+M7Y8wBmwZtTACeYChpJVvWKbXLTEw@mail.gmail.com> <523C9B03.2030002@petit-huguenin.org> <CALDtMrJBQQZP4bbkLh6OcZhmOGFrP5bAJ8BDr0AY1zKjPXChPw@mail.gmail.com> <523CAC92.2070102@petit-huguenin.org> <523CB114.20106@gmail.com> <523CB437.6000806@petit-huguenin.org> <CALDtMr+Fc3G-H--n7DuKPMzx-6fo_XweuYd=LxdjRp+tgB_3NQ@mail.gmail.com> <523CBD39.8000408@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:01:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CALDtMrLrwXXmioBJKLsyrnV1r_w7w4mhYrygCx8o4D-65mQ3cg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff1c8f239a44404e6d7cf26"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:59:04 -0700
Cc: Victor Pascual Avila <victor.pascual.avila@gmail.com>, Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>, "pntaw@ietf.org" <pntaw@ietf.org>, Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>, "Chenxin (Xin)" <hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [pntaw] New version of TURN over websockets draft
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: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 22:01:16 -0000

I think that we either have to remove RFC 6062 altogether or allow
Websockets for both TURN and DATA connections. If we allow Websockets for
TURN but we do not allow it for data then it would be useless, I believe.

REgards,
Oleg


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Sergio Garcia Murillo <
sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:

>  So, would we then just keep the websocket connection only for the TURN
> connection in RFC 6062 and let the client data connection stay as it is
> (ie. in TCP)? As:
>
>
>                         +-------------+
>           TURN Control  |             |
>          +--------------+ TURN Server +----------------+
>          |    WS/WSS    |             |    TCP         |
>          |              +------+------+                |
>          |                     |                       |
>          |                     |                       |
>      +---+---+   Client Data   |                   +---+---+
>      | Alice |-----------------+                   |  Bob  |
>      +-------+       TCP                           +-------+
>
> Or what should we do with the client data connection instead?
>
> Best regards
> Sergio
> El 20/09/2013 23:12, Oleg Moskalenko escribió:
>
>  RFC 6062 is not very important but I cannot say that it is not relevant.
> For the purpose of the new proposal we do not make a distinction between
> RFC 5766 and RFC 6062 - this new proposal is about a new TURN transport
> (Websockets). This transport is supposed to work universally in all
> accepted TURN RFCs. So it would be unnatural and illogical to remove RFC
> 6062 from the draft.
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email