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

Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com> Fri, 20 September 2013 21:16 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 81D9A21F9E9F for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:16:47 -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=0.000, 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 6Lvrt8ZhTCpA for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58A721F9E9D for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id lf1so1176325pab.38 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:16:40 -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=E9G/xkMGdG13OuopoSF9op2Bl2LUjcmawzJW0mLJNHk=; b=rRHDNcV9gwNIu1ha9lKOxfUpvxn5nvGbluY1qxzi4YqoRrTZLya4xCuKZGmus2zSwy 0ypPt2Bnt0wgOtyAROPuawbs9mw62xFT5Tpqy2zTov1CcbVwXc/QadVeK4MXbUUobNZo XYsuPu/HRWrJjYtKxfhVZxeBXw2fkalb+Nu/wie6HyTsdpxbbXIcknJ/XjbkyvCjP5fG JiXO3MGHKVYXkQD4VOKbpdAMg8pW0hIPWrUM04d8UhvwIW5hco5SHRbix2c95ruUyb4N ghrTgOCgfkm/N9NBsrDn/5QgnVVEH7x7n8VLLenHvcJ8E4Fi2arCPSCt0TDHOgv/oTGv 7ICg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.67.15.70 with SMTP id fm6mr10887802pad.109.1379711800617; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.129.138 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <523CB114.20106@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>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 14:16:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CALDtMrL2baVJ777BRv5sw_mg5mw_w2wrqDBFDykopDq-zGQYQQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11344eb0c4b41f04e6d72f11
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 21:16:47 -0000

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Sergio Garcia Murillo <
sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>
Sergio, RFC 6062 indeed make this draft somewhat more complex but I am
afraid that removing it from the draft at the moment can be controversial,
too. As I mentioned in previous communications, RFC 6062 may be really a
challenge because RFC 6062 call for a "continuous" communication channel
(unlike message-based communication in RFC 5766). But I am not sure that
removing it completely would be the right thing. This is up to you.