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

"Hutton, Andrew" <> Wed, 25 September 2013 18:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AACF21F969F for <>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.567
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Iej+-d5PmGdj for <>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:32:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6524C21F9E0B for <>; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Server) with ESMTP id C104023F067D; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:32:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 20:32:07 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <>
Thread-Topic: [pntaw] TURN over websockets or just TURN.
Thread-Index: Ac651aqKgci54WbeToGdcCETWYgQigAAvTwAAAANf1AAAWRD2QAA3kSAAA64gqA=
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:32:06 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>, <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 18:32:29 -0000

On: 25 September 2013 14:25 Sergio Garcia Murillo: Wrote:

> 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.

This debate is definitely a good thing and we seem to be agreed that there is a problem to solve so we are making progress. I was trying to have the debate now on whether the websockets overhead is worthwhile or not I don't see any reason to delay that discussion.

I am still to see any concrete examples of scenarios where the websockets approach provides better connectivity which is what I think we need to see before we can say that it is worthwhile.