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

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Fri, 20 September 2013 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@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 535F621F9E8B for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:25:23 -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=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 8YahfOuVGPpF for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A89A21F9CF3 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:25:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id ez12so124657wid.3 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=ae7YYi0YKY3A8FulOdDqlA+7COIWA2GVgAUi1I9vlT8=; b=zTgh4pmjDtkILZTwrOtbEOildjAIcUc5Zj/aZbfdhs9RDYzMPk/cRYlugzdlaoo2rw Dh7zbRzVLVi94etPK8INOGWb6M1c5SE4Y8dthjW/x1QPYVvBYJQ3F3+T6O0qk9h29VLV bpQIp4R5jtLr7tdSk3AXQ1o3HItCyxtCulX8pUY8lTrOKikvSftdqkTJVjoN+62/ONsV GMxBc3LbwGRTd8PVBIe0G+7uH2M85Myt23+vq0PO+haTeQeGrSqV4lwmN5oDBjrnfRHt C2oblFG4I3kkw9wagVORNYzzTDp7T2LwYMPMxINu1zHeNkgq1Nz+sw9DLVba56k/vMpG vRSQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.219.1 with SMTP id pk1mr7526337wjc.36.1379712319069; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:25:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (171.pool85-51-25.dynamic.orange.es. [85.51.25.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id mb7sm7778308wic.10.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <523CBD39.8000408@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 23:25:13 +0200
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@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>
In-Reply-To: <CALDtMr+Fc3G-H--n7DuKPMzx-6fo_XweuYd=LxdjRp+tgB_3NQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030201080404000407090901"
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 21:25:24 -0000

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.