IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com> Sat, 25 January 2014 00:52 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
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 3DABD1A025D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:52:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 UXp6IP9ULSHm for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:52:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2841A0244 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:52:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id x12so3599594wgg.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:52:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=msKHmihqv421jpq0nQXUu1RFSiELjU3eKuhdZ7gZy/s=; b=epeC+I56KAHB4W8CsGWeDCDOlgKgPnFyjOoWZlIA19HafTn8b4KKTW/41LBzaFDhjw aRScuXMnWKabqDZqF/R5wB4nsnc/uMkZbo5DSK04ZxnA0YP7DGk8F0x4vZZioqVjGKfH 1NO74SnNDYtD+WRLZM4c3M6QWrlGI8JNyEz6RUZ82aGDmgWz1oJVI4YgHUG8ifQJnMQm ifHSyVu53YA9mAKkPpqNsRx7y4rlEMfjc1EF5G2CqK03tnlWYvmhnb6z7qLJmLv7W8Gt fybD8g2y3CY7LWw1qJN7LBi8mhs1UcN/6/iTRYdLJ3q/nnXhBh/L+L3kqTQVCdmgtIC5 1oPw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.2.11 with SMTP id 11mr74973wjq.82.1390611139703; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.133.169 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.133.169 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:52:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52E2AE42.5060903@viagenie.ca>
References: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2428E32D@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <009601cf17ca$5723cb70$056b6250$@co.in> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CF32B82@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <004501cf18a1$913c4080$b3b4c180$@co.in> <52E27630.3030300@viagenie.ca> <001c01cf1920$a00c9220$e025b660$@co.in> <52E2952A.2010503@viagenie.ca> <002001cf1927$b502eb00$1f08c100$@co.in> <52E2AE42.5060903@viagenie.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:52:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGRAtBx6kCEskgmY2WZ2Rz+=-7e-8jTQEP1CCAt-X=J3fg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cb B <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b3a875e00b9a904f0c0e33b"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
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: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:52:23 -0000

On Jan 24, 2014 10:17 AM, "Simon Perreault" <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
wrote:
>
> Le 2014-01-24 12:14, Parthasarathi R a écrit :
>
>> Please note that when non-IETFers read this requirement document, they
come
>> to the conclusion that IETF RTCWeb WG recommends TURN and not other
>> mechanisms. I'm saying that requirement document should not be used as
the
>> mechanism to eliminate the other alternatives when there is a discussion
>> going-on in PNTAW alias. So, I'm asking for the change.
>
>
> I would totally agree with that sentiment, although I don't see your
proposed text change reflecting it accurately. How about simply:
>
> "Note that TURN support being mandatory does not preclude a WebRTC
endpoint from supporting additional traversal mechanisms."
>
>

+1 for the above text.

CB

> Simon
> --
> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email