Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 6062 support

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Tue, 11 March 2014 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229C61A0735 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7LpAx7hmWq7w for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22a.google.com (mail-we0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1341A044B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w61so10237707wes.15 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Z6AebkgOSZPo0P3Irz1M/95fZ/er4869y0dbRKovcrI=; b=S01LIrcyuYOXv2PQyqepazIaCW2jY6ZWzi+b90lL+Be9aSHhTWOK8QKa9vZPyUprSx wjLGJ1h4ouwtV/cnMw2rVl3Qw8bJw8suEoNIRLIVpAqWFk6kzF+Us5APNG6CqJEBAQ7F 5D7im1wBt2MPzkZdKpZU92TM9lxJ3jZ7GvUHaLxRhywtQULqx/WCnNnO2VwiWAXeqHBg vbSbX1NLdWI87kpxYELY1BC4oT0f7/WQtZlcBppHRHr2WMXcHtpUI9gbLaaPNicicP5e 3TwFk7B/6XWc0KrSIrANvvEQPO+dH9acB9L5u6ZTVWYWO7ehlE9KKlppFyrMGRcJFdPG sdWg==
X-Received: by 10.181.11.169 with SMTP id ej9mr3458444wid.18.1394548901097; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:41:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.217.161.66 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <531DDB5A.4060201@ericsson.com>
References: <CAOJ7v-0-U8ycUYcOwRGxgZVDQmdPMXC4Qt7F+uAn29AGOepX7w@mail.gmail.com> <CABAmMA00xA1TbXsQRYYnuukYyurZzdG8nKr95aT4gxHxQtNiMw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0xiG-omwmpXm9koakab+EDFo7W=gW+WY4fGS6QVKfALQ@mail.gmail.com> <4A409D06-511D-424D-8285-E38B3E08292D@skype.net> <53177A5E.7030704@viagenie.ca> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4844FABAB0B@TK5EX14MBXC296.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <53183BBB.3040409@viagenie.ca> <CAOJ7v-1ZN=N5w3hFRkrC+LzarGFnt0qimcJbkTxWy6z0vWZFDg@mail.gmail.com> <531874A4.6010908@viagenie.ca> <CAOJ7v-3xasrFG5WVXPd_hA0=OoxvKbAhL2V4erYt7-kGt_JrtA@mail.gmail.com> <53187960.2010709@viagenie.ca> <531DDB5A.4060201@ericsson.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:41:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dtmLUWO-fKtNMMxn4ozywY2-dM3X0kEYwipRb9LcHgxQw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043be1fcdf377204f455b704
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/0Ir_08S8Hdrd-blFB8_OObqJK2w
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 6062 support
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:41:50 -0000

Magnus said:

"I would guess that the simplest is to remove discussion of TURN TCP
altogether from Transports. That would not recommend it nor make it
disallowed. If we want to be explicit, then simply motivate why we don't
believe it necessary."

[BA] Removing a recommendation from the Transport document is OK with  me.
However, since we've had quite a bit of discussion on this topic, it would
be good to state why we don't believe it to be necessary (so as to avoid
rehashing this down the line).


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Magnus Westerlund <
magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:

> On 2014-03-06 14:34, Simon Perreault wrote:
> > Le 2014-03-06 13:23, Justin Uberti a écrit :
> >> can we agree that TURN TCP candidates are a SHOULD NOT?
> >
> > Not a SHOULD, sure. SHOULD NOT, no.
> >
>
> I would guess that the simplest is to remove discussion of TURN TCP
> altogether from Transports. That would not recommend it nor make it
> disallowed. If we want to be explicit, then simply motivate why we don't
> believe it necessary.
>
> Justin, what is the reason you wanted SHOULD NOT?
>
> cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>