IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 6062 support

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Tue, 11 March 2014 20:01 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 41EBD1A063A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.446
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.446 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] 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 1OsX5YoD2vYT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C987F1A0538 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACBA7C4F5C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:00:49 +0100 (CET)
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 tNHlnimkM6k9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:00:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.1.17] (unknown [188.113.88.47]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71B067C4F53 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:00:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <531F6B6E.6070609@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:00:46 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CAOJ7v-0-U8ycUYcOwRGxgZVDQmdPMXC4Qt7F+uAn29AGOepX7w@mail.gmail.com> <CABAmMA00xA1TbXsQRYYnuukYyurZzdG8nKr95aT4gxHxQtNiMw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0xiG-omwmpXm9koakab+EDFo7W=gW+WY4fGS6QVKfALQ@mail.gmail.com> <4A409D06-511D-424D-8285-E38B3E08292D@skype.net> <53177A5E.7030704@viagenie.ca> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4844FABAB0B@TK5EX14MBXC296.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <53183BBB.3040409@viagenie.ca> <CAOJ7v-1ZN=N5w3hFRkrC+LzarGFnt0qimcJbkTxWy6z0vWZFDg@mail.gmail.com> <531874A4.6010908@viagenie.ca> <CAOJ7v-3xasrFG5WVXPd_hA0=OoxvKbAhL2V4erYt7-kGt_JrtA@mail.gmail.com> <53187960.2010709@viagenie.ca> <531DDB5A.4060201@ericsson.com> <CAOW+2dtmLUWO-fKtNMMxn4ozywY2-dM3X0kEYwipRb9LcHgxQw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dtmLUWO-fKtNMMxn4ozywY2-dM3X0kEYwipRb9LcHgxQw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010605070206010000020702"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/EP-CCsQEJGpqnWp2L90qtywVkVA
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 6062 support
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: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 20:01:02 -0000

On 03/11/2014 03:41 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Magnus said:
>
> "I would guess that the simplest is to remove discussion of TURN TCP
> altogether from Transports. That would not recommend it nor make it
> disallowed. If we want to be explicit, then simply motivate why we don't
> believe it necessary."
>
> [BA] Removing a recommendation from the Transport document is OK with  
> me.  However, since we've had quite a bit of discussion on this topic, 
> it would be good to state why we don't believe it to be necessary (so 
> as to avoid rehashing this down the line).

In RFC 2119 theory, MAY and not mentioning it at all have exactly the 
same weight.
MAY gives you a place to hang the discussion of why it's not anything 
stronger on.


>
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Magnus Westerlund 
> <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com 
> <mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 2014-03-06 14:34, Simon Perreault wrote:
>     > Le 2014-03-06 13:23, Justin Uberti a écrit :
>     >> can we agree that TURN TCP candidates are a SHOULD NOT?
>     >
>     > Not a SHOULD, sure. SHOULD NOT, no.
>     >
>
>     I would guess that the simplest is to remove discussion of TURN TCP
>     altogether from Transports. That would not recommend it nor make it
>     disallowed. If we want to be explicit, then simply motivate why we
>     don't
>     believe it necessary.
>
>     Justin, what is the reason you wanted SHOULD NOT?
>
>     cheers
>
>     Magnus Westerlund
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Ericsson AB                 | Phone +46 10 7148287
>     <tel:%2B46%2010%207148287>
>     Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
>     <tel:%2B46%2073%200949079>
>     SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto:
>     magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com <mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email