IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Clarification in draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-11

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 04 February 2016 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 723D01B3207 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:59:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=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 EAYtRSwOVZHr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22d.google.com (mail-yk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 103371B3088 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:59:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id r207so44654961ykd.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 07:59:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=H1pjDIw0UQXDTqiuRCMJIU6MBPNt8+M/m7mpSic6tI4=; b=VbdHYoGWVZYrJ+Mh/nbb/vkUpWYLZXmqbiuOM/0cGyYMTsbfPY3fGWdw+TEQlA2AtI JiiiXgWMBLXO1vRFkfi8YwyJZdwHaWm8G/CNxoaI16BGezzX6r6yzkpzUdvrCP+ClmeE kAP4sipQn+LRTTikzPjxOZOsK+05wwURCSYIz5mUs76aAmWy6fmqHRqwX+EildnulPPl Zd+1Bal3SF8jNAbrXM/BL7DSd4IuxBbT3Es9CoRpj07IHP+dBqO0xGZa21ORaRekwfF1 huWsXdDmRBIuPELrfRHU+LvOaf+0xneaW2Q5CF1Ukyy4LAD+m4XDT9u0AX/S+Zf/Ken1 L3Mg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=H1pjDIw0UQXDTqiuRCMJIU6MBPNt8+M/m7mpSic6tI4=; b=hkGxwtNiLY3/ofuJNF6O3ORO0A5EkqMW0vu0D6sCVKLcmpjuILhelJXyzNB8EzQuSp 10M1JVENvdeWFPGj4e3I7Ei8RoHSyyDuonApWwNkjiO7VQvmxsQ4DM4IZV46h7EitS52 s47DSmSpsGdvW2M+eHDlYl4lqHwLcGecI9E0lN7LI0eV0BWisc+HKU6SVaLUop76cGj7 xXaFHpNcxm5rQ+eghwe+NrcrgmUKPEtsRS2keAHwn6mYTeAuoHGfkS1Lp+KY1yzjjKg0 R0YB0oI1WhesqC2PrRc8PiOj3agpqGjrLzodrnmAlrFdfKp+4U1ly7jX6+3/JeUC+SJd PJlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSVk1YCb+kZ1eBlvomb/HQtUQrRg1sWg6w/6a1h1CNucmC4pzcmjzXq0Cj7E7ni9hQXa7Z/br6mkUA8mw==
X-Received: by 10.37.24.195 with SMTP id 186mr4061733yby.162.1454601557385; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 07:59:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.249.5 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:58:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <F63DF3E8-51BF-4142-923A-663D053483C8@iii.ca>
References: <F63DF3E8-51BF-4142-923A-663D053483C8@iii.ca>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 07:58:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOjYyQP10sSK91EvaCnW0c-ei+UJqk5KOkTG4CEjE=gzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114159b61e5910052af3d151"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/9gfMp9BccTlEQT1G3i0BzAUkmW8>
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>, "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Clarification in draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-11
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:59:19 -0000

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

> I think we need to make the ALPN a bit more explicit. We agreed to include
> the ALPN header so that a proxy knows it might receive video packet rates
> tunnelled across it. However the text on this is not 100% clear. Right now
> it says
>
>    If it does so, it MUST support the "ALPN" header as
>    specified in [RFC7639],
>
> But some people have posted out including this header is optional in 7639
> so there might be some ubiquity here about what is meant. I think we should
> change the word “support” to “include” to make it clear this needs to be
> sent to the proxy so that it would read
>
>     If it does so, it MUST include the "ALPN" header as
>    specified in [RFC7639],
>
> I believe that correctly reflects what we intended on this. There is no
> requirement for the proxy to understand or do anything with this header.
> Old proxies will just ignore it and cary on as if it was not there.
>

I wouldn't have a problem with this if it were restricted to browsers.
However,
we don't want to careful about retroactively branding endpoints which aren't
browsers but can talk to WebRTC clients as noncompliant. Maybe this
is like codecs where they are "WebRTC Compatible"?

-Ekr

Cullen
>
> (with my individual contributor hat on)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email