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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

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
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pntaw/current/msg00185.html. 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.

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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------