Re: [rtcweb] Discussion of draft-schwartz-rtcweb-return-04

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Thu, 08 January 2015 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 09DAC1ACDDF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 13:06:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 zhfxrfdRZU2w for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 13:06:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-x22e.google.com (mail-vc0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF17C1A912A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 13:06:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id id10so1987418vcb.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 13:06:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=3D1Ko4dXRNjJjMwP9rWKiZaReSOa3js8GgR4UgZu28w=; b=hZPe3TaqIIcPMgRPPbg3EnDGX0uiLB3ZUTa07S4cW8lPqZxn/t1clD73tXGpGsodS8 Nepxl+s47zOC6WYsox8amG1Maq087ZoqDdK+hZbHriaV7MfzXqxwTj5Ls+fbaHhdYG/J 0vu9Sm3uryCJUHKI/6cuMRrDoA0Zz/Yc4e2OimQRNjWcPupcno77x9POeRaUql6UBadz Q3nKBf1Lupz0sDLqWOYFTMTrRc5i4Hye9hUvEuSjMsArI22NgrUrEsPDPZCauV2HfQaA NSeWi2B+P9jrJ3MedxVpXYSWaH4vKc8Y8OBi2Xna7dnTO7/1fIGmkmUvHhKkOC7B5Q1g 5zZg==
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=3D1Ko4dXRNjJjMwP9rWKiZaReSOa3js8GgR4UgZu28w=; b=OIksBxDDGTrAaia0ddvAo8XVBVjJAa+sPxWlW1ybI71NgwS8wxR+yPj3XqRPVWoOT8 vzCf8QO5qMOzI5a6m+xZ9TAoziuXiRQH4M0SSR4rSULLaDQtCzgE+VM1SGXs4vXKp8kA gSBZWgA2h/9VmUBzfDx2c4twyrDzATNd018AZUnrd4zchw+gjfNtwI1Mbo1sMdjt8Z9U 0JTDhc1P8zIuL+n4zjxzPegt2wfoPfvZLrC3BfSTH6eMjkVjdHVqFolt1WZ1NcxumuP4 1MriXxYWI16+4B/C+2oOOcIUnFEQN05Oxf7522STYNK1IbVJXxjpfM1xALgr1r89rCbs nCFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnlSRNQ1gZWkP9U3ZGysWz3kik11kBsOV7vlq/GVy0cP01/kHVKuFghSg8egmVRtSOEc9WY
X-Received: by 10.220.143.209 with SMTP id w17mr8413591vcu.49.1420751197821; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 13:06:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.111.232 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 13:06:17 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAHbrMsD3KnE+thwvUTp4r=6oqv=QEdQWr-Ev4-4cwD3OuFkHnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMAbe9cnkBz6GkKLG6VjbTnMp-Lvd8o=VLb+_7mDjNKNww@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbrMsD3KnE+thwvUTp4r=6oqv=QEdQWr-Ev4-4cwD3OuFkHnw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 13:06:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1j=K-T18TC-ZvegMkR-4hzks4p0Vg1e7OiFTQ98akhzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Schwartz <bemasc@webrtc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3439d075fdf3050c2a6adb
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/B1aWsG9hZ0XKdb-dTC3qRsoo_1A>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Discussion of draft-schwartz-rtcweb-return-04
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: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 21:06:43 -0000

Right. To be absolutely clear, this draft explains how RTCWEB
implementations can satisfy the requirement F20 from Section 3.3.5 of
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-15#section-3.3.5.1.
We've discussed the need for this for some time, but the RETURN draft is
the first proposal for how to actually address it.

   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   REQ-ID      DESCRIPTION
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   F20     The browser must support the use of STUN and TURN
           servers that are supplied by entities other than
           the web application (i.e. the network provider).
   ----------------------------------------------------------------




On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Benjamin Schwartz <bemasc@webrtc.org>
wrote:

> For what it's worth, regarding scope, my perspective is that the document
> does not create any new protocol extensions or API points.  Its only
> purpose is to lay out in detail the expected interaction between
> externally-provided TURN servers (like those found by TRAM autodiscovery)
> and WebRTC, which is currently extremely under-specified.  Specifically, it
> explains that externally-provided TURN servers are _proxies_, not just
> additional TURN servers like those listed in the RTCPeerConnection
> constructor arguments.  Treating these servers as proxies (in the
> particular manner specified) allows us to preserve (and enhance) some
> important performance, connectivity, and privacy properties of WebRTC.
>
> This document only imposes requirements (of any strength) on WebRTC
> implementations that intend to implement a mechanism for using TURN servers
> that were not indicated by the application.  It does not demand that all
> browsers add support for such a mechanism, and it does not specify a
> preference for any particular TURN configuration mechanism.
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> During the Honolulu meeting, the chairs agreed to ask for some on-list
>> discussion of this draft prior to discussing adoption.  During the holidays
>> we dropped the ball on that, for which our apologies.   At this point,
>> though, we'd like to see some discussion of the draft--in particular on its
>> scope and how it fits into the landscape of work we need to complete
>> thanks,
>>
>> Ted, Cullen, Sean
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>