Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-uberti-behave-turn-rest-00.txt
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 20:16 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 5E66611E813F; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 0xIj3z6JHUKN; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699C911E8145; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 13:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r6MKGTvC065788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:16:30 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <51ED9318.6000003@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:16:24 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rajmohan Banavi <rajmohanbanavi@gmail.com>
References: <20130715214906.5314.83583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALe60zBA_unaQekMkKwKwKNRPbJjECAtJ9bAV=fv6V6Mdfon6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2WGi_fD9mVx+dtZBo+X4-sXxXZFek9mt2cAmrqFCyYMg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJWm+fGBDec_66WMBVhsv5TD8hVzDoOtd5CGs7xAHZqkYtDGBg@mail.gmail.com> <51E70106.8060100@goodadvice.pages.de> <CAJWm+fGUEH43bgR1j56qea3+uSVQ63myr1tZkrdYRGEmBw=zew@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2wzEQXSMPM4bnGW5_0ciDf9VuY1nb2xp=Wbqe0Rq5yZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJWm+fE1G2r0TcUAcZUVCP0WRSC35JFBdZ-oMqJfAykhNExqyA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJWm+fE1G2r0TcUAcZUVCP0WRSC35JFBdZ-oMqJfAykhNExqyA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070307020801070707040107"
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: behave <behave@ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-uberti-behave-turn-rest-00.txt
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, 22 Jul 2013 20:16:37 -0000
On 7/18/13 07:28, Rajmohan Banavi wrote: > Hi Justin, comments inline with additional comments at the end. > > Correct, but that is a significant advantage, especially when the > web and TURN servers are separate entities. > > > IMHO, the standard spec should not be based on any specific > implementation method. Now I agree that the TURN server validation > becomes easier using this method because it does not have to do some > sort of lookup. However, some another TURN server implementer can > achieve the same functionality by providing REST API but using > randomly generated pasword (rather than use HMAC) and using some sort > of lookup for TURN username when TURN ALLOCATE request is received. I think the value here -- the value in defining a common scheme for password generation -- is that I could get an off-the-shelf TURN server from arbitrary vendor A, and run an off-the-shelf credential server from abitrary vendor B, and it would all work together. What you propose requires collusion between the TURN server provider and the credential server provider, using a not-yet-defined (and, if I read your proposal, never-publicly-defined) protocol to share credential information via a back-channel. What Justin proposes gets us this inter-vendor interop cheaply and easily. What you're counterproposing forces people into a single-vendor (or, at least, partnered) solution, which kinda defeats the purpose of defining this in an SDO in the first place. /a
- [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Rajmohan Banavi
- Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Philipp Hancke
- Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Rajmohan Banavi
- Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Rajmohan Banavi
- Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for dr… Philipp Hancke
- Re: [rtcweb] [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notificati… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notificati… Rajmohan Banavi
- Re: [rtcweb] [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notificati… Rajmohan Banavi
- Re: [rtcweb] [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notificati… Oleg Moskalenko
- Re: [rtcweb] [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notificati… Oleg Moskalenko
- Re: [rtcweb] [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notificati… Kaiduan Xie