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

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Fri, 24 January 2014 01:14 UTC

Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093EF1A01B3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:14:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.354
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zIpZDOzlqOVM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:14:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mailhostbox.com (outbound-us2.mailhostbox.com [70.87.28.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6E71A01DC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:14:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.166.149.63]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by smtp.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3EC1F63934E; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:13:58 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1390526048; bh=eXSI2c/Q288D/I24+SM7Ed8WzwbRBViDxfZqpKiv2O8=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=nCoZ/mkUNajilQlbnoOewYo2g4c3eYDI81OWBALta7RlmQ7xEs3qOSmuh6vjhE00G hcuMWnPwFfFBM8pjOPN5XCRPWEeDQzJS9aqAbYTVyfZvDFqHWGLUZMVLL0C994Xw6b Ci3MfIGupyfES98skUhFQuxkrEZgzfir4L/7mhcA=
From: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: 'Stefan Håkansson LK' <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, "'Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)'" <tireddy@cisco.com>, 'Magnus Westerlund' <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "'Chenxin (Xin)'" <hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.com>, "'Hutton, Andrew'" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>, 'Christer Holmberg' <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2428E32D@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <009601cf17ca$5723cb70$056b6250$@co.in> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CF32B82@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CF32B82@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 06:43:51 +0530
Message-ID: <004501cf18a1$913c4080$b3b4c180$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac8WibJ5SktWxckav0akJ56IFdfzqQCFGydg
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020208.52E1BE60.0080, ss=2, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=2, cld=1, fgs=64
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Suspect
X-CTCH-Score: 0.000
X-CTCH-Rules:
X-CTCH-Flags: 64
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 70.87.28.142
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:14:13 -0000

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.

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Håkansson LK [mailto:stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 3:48 PM
> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)'; Magnus Westerlund;
> 'Chenxin (Xin)'; 'Hutton, Andrew'; Christer Holmberg; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
> requirements-12
> 
> On 2014-01-23 00:33, Parthasarathi R wrote:
> > Hi Thiru,
> >
> > I agree with you that PCP is yet another alternative. It is not clear
> to me
> > from your mail whether you are fine with the word "TURN" in the
> requirement
> > draft to refer PCP as a solution in the later stage.
> >
> > It is confusing to me when I'm discussing about WebRTC FW proposal to
> others
> > as they assume that it is "TURN" as per requirement draft.
> 
> In the early phases of the use-case draft we did not use the words
> "ICE", "STUN" or "TURN" - things were stated more technology neutral.
> 
> But at some stage it was pretty clear that ICE was the solution the WG
> was going for; and at the same time many wanted to have ICE specific
> requirements (such as "The browser must be able to use several STUN and
> TURN servers") included.
> 
> So we made the change and started talking about ICE, STUN and TURN in
> the document (but note that in the description it is still said
> "Assuming that ICE will be used").
> 
> I am not super happy about having the requirements depend on choosing a
> certain solution, but at the same time I think that ICE is a corner
> stone so for me it is livable to have in the document.
> 
> Stefan
> >
> > Thanks
> > Partha
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:tireddy@cisco.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:48 PM
> >> To: Magnus Westerlund; Parthasarathi R; 'Chenxin (Xin)'; 'Hutton,
> >> Andrew'; 'Christer Holmberg'; rtcweb@ietf.org
> >> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-
> and-
> >> requirements-12
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Magnus
> >>> Westerlund
> >>> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 3:29 PM
> >>> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Chenxin (Xin)'; 'Hutton, Andrew'; 'Christer
> >> Holmberg';
> >>> rtcweb@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-
> >> and-
> >>> requirements-12
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >> Yes, there could other solutions to solve the FW problem for example
> by
> >> using PCP (http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-penno-rtcweb-pcp-
> >> 00#section-3.1)
> >>
> >> -Tiru.
> >>
> >>> 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  +46 10 7148287
> >>> Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> >>> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto:
> magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >> -
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> rtcweb mailing list
> >>> rtcweb@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> 
> =