IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 TURN/IPV6 RFC 6156.

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 12 September 2013 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 EE7CB11E810B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.474
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 gr7Ng9L3e9qA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s33.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s33.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E29221E8053 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU169-W96 ([65.55.111.72]) by blu0-omc2-s33.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:06:23 -0700
X-TMN: [sBPwkNtQJT9ijqkC2HvG2VP91PCY5JoFt27HCtS/UIY=]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W9671819A72596DB44D63DA933A0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_d6856e87-7dac-4d49-a6ee-a09945305943_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 13:06:23 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BBC905@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <20130903094045.23789.92925.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>, <5225B1AF.7050906@alvestrand.no>, <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BBC905@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Sep 2013 20:06:23.0406 (UTC) FILETIME=[8DF7BCE0:01CEAFF3]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 TURN/IPV6 RFC 6156.
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: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 20:06:35 -0000

Andrew Hutton said: 

> Currently draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 does not say anything about IPV6 which I assume it should. Specifically I am thinking that it needs to state a requirement to support RFC6156 support "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extension for IPv6".
> 
> I am not sure how much we need to say about webrtc client procedures around RFC6156 and whether they should be included in the draft-ietf-rtcweb-transport or whether it is something we should add to our nat/firewall draft (draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations).  Any opinions on this?

[BA] Adding it to the NAT/Firewall draft makes the most sense to me.  Among other things, it might provide more of an opportunity to get into some of the "Happy Eyeballs" issues that have come up, such as relative prioritization of IPv4 versus IPv6.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email