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

Magnus Westerlund <> Mon, 20 January 2014 09:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954BA1A00C9 for <>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:59:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.151
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.151 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Pziy_H66-DSF for <>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:59:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556011A00C7 for <>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:59:30 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f1c8e000005ceb-7f-52dcf381bee7
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id AB.B4.23787.183FCD25; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:59:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.347.0; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:59:29 +0100
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 10:59:04 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Parthasarathi R <>, "'Chenxin (Xin)'" <>, "'Hutton, Andrew'" <>, 'Christer Holmberg' <>,
References: <> <00d601cec911$b0fd4b60$12f7e220$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <000d01cecdb2$63c1ef90$2b45ceb0$> <> <006201cf1479$a4fe6ed0$eefb4c70$>
In-Reply-To: <006201cf1479$a4fe6ed0$eefb4c70$>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprBLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW7T5ztBBr+Wclls21BqcfNKL6PF 5E99rBZr/7WzO7B4tBx5y+qxZMlPJo8P87+we2zvecwSwBLFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAlXHp6Aem gkuiFasnvGdtYFwr2MXIySEhYCLRNXEpE4QtJnHh3nq2LkYuDiGBQ4wSX86eYIFwljNKTLnX xApSxSugLbF17RSwDhYBVYnf6w+xgdhsAhYSN380gtmiAsESt6Y9YIeoF5Q4OfMJ2CARgTuM EleXvQNrFhYIk7i9ZDXUhi5Wib99x4ASHBycQDfN/yYPYkoIiEv0NAaBlDML6ElMudrCCGHL SzRvnc0MYgsB3dPQ1ME6gVFwFpJ1s5C0zELSsoCReRUje25iZk56ueEmRmDoHtzyW3cH46lz IocYpTlYlMR5P7x1DhISSE8sSc1OTS1ILYovKs1JLT7EyMTBKdXAyNG4S697tmBrDs91ZuNq oSZpf1H5Vz9dI5fOfDE3tfD0Mr/Y1a07jedsi5/DdS//pvRlTVbv1tDq9w/yr6ckVJTYXv0T K7Jsjd4Fz+LfxS++MrfpO3Xr1l6Jaw7LKHHktotXmPI0vfrMz+ad/LkG4ie3+jz84vLVdvak 1fdvfFI5+zhFtOeWEktxRqKhFnNRcSIA6s37KSsCAAA=
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 09:59:32 -0000

Hi Partha,

On 2014-01-18 19:18, Parthasarathi R wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
> I have trouble in the usage of TURN instead of media relay server in the
> requirement document as TURN is the solution and not the requirement. 

Noted, I like to get more input from the WG if they think this should be
changed to use media relay.

> ICE-TCP and TURN server are two different relay mechanism whenever browser
> is not possible to transport the media in UDP.

My personal opinion is that the above is incorrect statement. I believe
you may be able to realize a higher layer gateway using ICE-TCP. But ICE
TCP per say is not a relay mechanism. To my understanding the core part
of ICE-TCP is the establishment of an end-to-end TCP connection between
the ICE agents. I also note that with our current transport stacks you
still need a framing on top of the TCP connection to realize the
datagrams that carries the RTP or DTLS packets.

 TURN server is good in case
> of browser-to-browser scenario wherein ICE-TCP is preferred approach for
> browser-to-webrtc gateway. The related mail thread is discussed in PNTAW as
> So, I
> preferred to have the separate requirement as discussed in this mail thread
> which leads to the conclusion as part of PNTAW alias discussion. Please let
> me know your opinion on the same.

I personally are uncertain if there exist any need for changing the
use-case and requirements draft. I would like to note the following text
in the use-case and requirements draft:

   This document was developed in an initial phase of the work with
   rather minor updates at later stages.  It has not really served as a
   tool in deciding features or scope for the WGs efforts so far.  It is
   proposed to be used in a later phase to evaluate the protocols and
   solutions developed by the WG.

So, I believe the basic NAT/FW requirement exist. It might be to
solution focused in its description. However, it is also clear that we
have a number of solution parts that exist beyond the requirements.

So, I still see need WG participants to provide feedback on this to
determine if there exist any consensus to modify the use-case document
or not.


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: