Re: [rtcweb] New version of use-case draft uploaded

["Parthasarathi R" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Magnus,

Please read inline.

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:17 PM
> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Stefan Håkansson LK'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] New version of use-case draft uploaded
> 
> On 2014-02-10 20:09, Parthasarathi R wrote:
> > Hi Magnus,
> >
> > Thanks for proposing a new formulation of the note by the authors. I
> agree
> > with you that F2 and F29 are generic WebRTC NAT/Firewall requirements
> which
> > does not restrict ICE-TCP as one of the solution.
> >
> > The confusion with F31 and F32 requirements is because of the missing
> of
> > WebRTC server/gateway requirements. F31 and F32 leads to the
> assumption of
> > mandating TURN servers in the WebRTC server/gateway (by some of the
> WebRTC
> > gateway Providers) as there is no text in this usecase & requirement
> > document to clarify.
> 
> Sorry, I fail to understand which of multiple possible angles you are
> arguing here.
> 
> A) That the use case document is missing a whole requirement related to
> WebRTC Servers. WebRTC server, is something I am uncertain to what you
> refer to, a Web server or a media plan related server dealing with peer
> connections?
> 
<Partha> WebRTC server/gateway is a server which is a combination of Web
Server which handles WebRTC signaling and Media Plane server which deals
with peer-connection. Sec 3.4 of
draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-13 describes 3 usecases for the
same. Unfortunately, draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-13 is
missing NAT/Firewall traversal requirement related to WebRTC server/gateway.
</Partha>

> B) That F31 and F32 would lead to an assumption of mandating something,
> which currently is the only solution described?
> 
<Partha> 
IMO, WebRTC server/gateway does not require TURN server and ICE-TCP serve
the purpose (Maximum of single WebRTC endpoint behind the firewall scenario
in a two party WebRTC session). As F31 and F32 mandates for TURN and there
is no NAT/Firewall explicit requirement for WebRTC server/gateway, it leads
to the conclusion of TURN server as an only solution by some of WebRTC
gateway providers. Hope this clarifies.
</Partha>

> C) That there needs to be text describing some aspect of the global
> presence?
> 
<Partha> It is good to have the text which describe NAT/firewall traversal
for WebRTC server/gatway perspective as well. I could not understand why you
are not allowing the changing F31 and F32 or adding the text about WebRTC
server NAT/firewall traversal in sec 3.4. Could you please clarify.
</Partha>

> 
>  I have already wrote in the separate mail thread
> > (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11338.html)
> to
> > provide WebRTC server/gateway guidelines document for more clarity.
> 
> Good, can you leave with the text and Stefan's text proposal for the
> note?
> 
<Partha> I agree for Stefan's proposal in the separate mail thread as it is
related to WebRTC endpoints requirement. </Partha>

> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------