IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 22 October 2014 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 636B61ACD24 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:52:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 FTiGWq6ZtkaL for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B206D1ACD19 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A897C00CD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:52:51 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lMlA3Jn2pXbt for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:52:47 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [172.28.89.184] (unknown [74.125.122.49]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85D837C0055 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:52:47 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5447C4BA.6070805@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:52:42 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CALiegfm5OZKTvnr8Cf=t+eKYbwgLfFWuGSOk6Ko9vppUEA4xvw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-1NgDGVahbhJeb=5m1bjTvYdqKPTXmiOWqEw_wev8TV_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-1NgDGVahbhJeb=5m1bjTvYdqKPTXmiOWqEw_wev8TV_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090809050209020800060208"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Bogfu4W0GiTKFY5ZI1I5uLMUt4E
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports
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: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:52:59 -0000

On 08/25/2014 07:36 AM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> Yes, 4571 must be used for ICE connectivity checks, when using ICE-TCP.
>
> However, TURN/TCP has its own framing for STUN messages.
>
> I would simplify your sentence to:
>
>    If ICE-TCP connections are used, framing according to [RFC4571] MUST
>    be used for all packets, unless the content has its own framing
> mechanism.

Checking the list for long-delayed updates....

Checking back: The change from TCP to ICE-TCP is good (this excludes
TURN-TCP from this paragraph), but the exchange leaves me uncertain
about the status of STUN packets on ICE-TCP connections.

Do they happen at all? If they happen, should they be RFC 4571
encapsulated, or not?

>
>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net
> <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-06 says:
>
>        If TCP connections are used, RTP framing according to [RFC4571]
>     MUST
>        be used, both for the RTP packets and for the DTLS packets used to
>        carry data channels.
>
>
>     Not just RTP and DTLS, but also for STUN packets must be framed with
>     RFC4571. And I do not understand why "DTLS packets used to carry data
>     channels". In fact all the DTLS packets (also the ones for the
>     handshake) must be framed as per RFC 4571.
>
>
>     So I suggest to improve the above text as follows:
>
>        If TCP connections are used, RTP framing according to [RFC4571]
>     MUST
>        be used for the STUN packets, SRTP packets, SRTCP packets and DTLS
>        packets.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Iñaki Baz Castillo
>     <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb


-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email