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

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 22 January 2014 15:55 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 2F8F31A00E4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:55:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] 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 HftlXmx9Bjsi for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:55:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 280FD1A00EC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:55:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10E4F39E070; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:55:19 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o-RxzGtqdK+4; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:55:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hta-hippo.lul.corp.google.com (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:1043:1:7646:a0ff:fe90:e2bb]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A11801EC044; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:55:17 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52DFE9DD.6040202@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:55:09 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <20130903094045.23789.92925.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5225B1AF.7050906@alvestrand.no> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BBC905@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BBC905@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 TURN/IPV6 RFC 6156.
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 Jan 2014 15:55:13 -0000

On 09/09/2013 06:36 PM, Hutton, Andrew wrote:
> 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?

I've added a section saying that we MUST support RFC 6156. I don't think 
we need to say more.

>
> Regards
> Andy
>
>