IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 TURN/IPV6 RFC 6156.

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Mon, 09 September 2013 16:36 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A494111E8112 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:36:57 -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]
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 Q6K7uFNlaqHw for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D0911E8101 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id B62AF1EB84AF; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:36:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.31]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:36:46 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 TURN/IPV6 RFC 6156.
Thread-Index: AQHOqIuNkwYToBE58EykiB8AyoOij5m9npdg
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:36:47 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BBC905@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <20130903094045.23789.92925.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5225B1AF.7050906@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <5225B1AF.7050906@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 TURN/IPV6 RFC 6156.
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:36:57 -0000

Currently draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 does not say anything about IPV6 which I assume it should. Specifically I am thinking that it needs to state a requirement to support RFC6156 support "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extension for IPv6".

I am not sure how much we need to say about webrtc client procedures around RFC6156 and whether they should be included in the draft-ietf-rtcweb-transport or whether it is something we should add to our nat/firewall draft (draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations).  Any opinions on this?

Regards
Andy

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status