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

Hi Sergio,

Please see inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pntaw-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pntaw-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Sergio Garcia Murillo
> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 2:03 AM
> To: Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Cc: Victor Pascual Avila; Oleg Moskalenko; pntaw@ietf.org; Lorenzo Miniero;
> Chenxin (Xin)
> Subject: Re: [pntaw] New version of TURN over websockets draft
> 
> El 20/09/2013 22:14, Marc Petit-Huguenin escribió:
> > On 09/20/2013 12:57 PM, Oleg Moskalenko wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin
> >> <marc@petit-huguenin.org <mailto:marc@petit-huguenin.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> OK so I suggest to say in the draft that a new Websocket connection will
> >> be created for each TCP peer, because that have an impact on implementation
> >> design.
> >>
> >>
> >> ... for RFC 6062 TURN TCP, of course. The key key words here are "TCP
> >> peers" (as in RFC 6062, unlike "UDP peers" in RFC 5766). That may be worth
> >> mentioning, indeed.
> >>
> >> This draft is mostly driven by the necessity of enhanced connectivity of
> >> the clients (browsers) in WebRTC environment. So the question of
> >> multiplicity of TCP / Websocket connections is not very important in this
> >> context.
> > If having TCP peers is not important, then remove RFC 6062 from this draft.
> >
> > Also, the draft does not explain the procedures related to SRV and NAPTR
> RRs:
> >
> > example.net.
> > IN NAPTR 100 10 "" RELAY:turn.ws "" websocket.example.net.
> >
> > websocket.example.net.
> > IN NAPTR 100 10 S RELAY:turn.ws "" _turn._ws.example.net.
> >
> > _turn._ws.example.net.
> > IN SRV   0 0 80 a.example.net.
> >
> > a.example.net.
> > IN A     192.0.2.1
> >
> >
> 
> Hi Marc
> 
> It was my error to keep the websocket support  for RFC 6062 in the draft
> (against Oleg recommendations, by the way).  I agree with both of you
> that it will be better to remove it from the draft, as it is causing
> most of the discussions and will not provide anything to webrtc.
> 
> Regarding the SRV and NAPTR RRs, for webrtc are not needed AFAIK, but we
> could add it to the draft for completeness. Would you be willing to
> collaborate in order to write that chapter?
> 
> Also, I would like to introduce in next draft version how HTTP
> authentication/authorization (oAuth, cookies, etc) mechanisms could be
> used in the TURN over websocekt connection on top of the standard TURN
> authentication. That would remove the need for the current REST API fro
> access to TURN services. 

we had discussed in BEHAVE WG to change REST API draft to use OAuth (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg11095.html). You may want to check with Justin.

-Tiru.

> If anyone would be willing to collaborate on
> this (or any other subject) will be very welcome.
> 
> Best regards
> Sergio
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pntaw mailing list
> pntaw@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw