Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

Le 2014-01-23 20:13, Parthasarathi R a écrit :
> Hi Stefan,
>
> Thanks a lot for providing the background. We are in the same page w.r.t
> ICE. My concern is w.r.t TURN word usage only. It will be great in case
> "TURN" is replaced with "Firewall traversal" in the below mentioned snippet
> of the draft.
>
> <snip>
> Sec 3.3.4.1
> the service provider would like to be able to provide several STUN and TURN
> servers (via the app) to the browser;
>
> Sec 3.3.5.1
> It must be possible to configure the browsers used in the enterprise with
> network specific STUN and TURN servers.
>
> The RTCWEB functionality will need to utilize both network specific STUN and
> TURN resources and STUN and TURN servers provisioned by the web application.
>
>
> Sec 4.2
>
>   F31     The browser must be able to use several STUN
>             and TURN servers
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------
>     F32     There browser must support that STUN and TURN
>             servers to use are supplied by other entities
>             than via the web application (i.e. the network
>             provider).
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Appendix A
>
>
>   A22     The Web API must provide means for the application to specify
> several STUN and/or TURN servers to use.
> </snip>
>
> Also, Could you plese add the statement in the line of that "Firewall
> traversal mechanism in this document shall be TURN, ICE-TCP, TURN over
> WebSocket, PCP" to provide more clarity.

FWIW, I would completely disagree with that change. It makes no sense to me.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca