Re: [rtcweb] rtcweb-transports reference to TRAM discovery

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 24 December 2014 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 7D82A1A1B15 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:55:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Ci88HpIevWsC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:55:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F05201A1B13 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:55:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.131] (unknown [71.179.209.247]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C445622E25F; Wed, 24 Dec 2014 16:54:54 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <F1DDC0E1-8B87-45D9-ACDD-7A53F34A79E2@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 16:54:47 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E1B969F2-318A-4514-8899-44D595F63F30@mnot.net>
References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E63FB08@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CABcZeBOpX0vM9NJeKY5e+S13oKrLW3Td53qcxRkCHa2=nv=EGg@mail.gmail.com> <CANO7kWBY1MTU1A2fWo0E5Y6TQ1o+vWSz22pnWz6+5s7SFQcP-g@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E63FD67@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CAOJ7v-1NnS1QOF-Ujv7a=qCnXrQ0htd0b4TFUDaKgwik9Rd=-Q@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E643D2C@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <5491B831.70704@alvestrand.no> <F1DDC0E1-8B87-45D9-ACDD-7A53F34A79E2@cisco.com>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Fr55GtViwTxN6p9J8vMdPgeCnvY
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 11:04:25 -0800
Cc: RTCWEB <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] rtcweb-transports reference to TRAM discovery
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, 24 Dec 2014 21:55:05 -0000

I’d say that there’s some level of implementer interest in standardising / documenting proxy.pac, but — so far — inadequate resources; I don’t see *any* interest in WPAD standardization, as it’s viewed as actively bad.

Regards,


> On 17 Dec 2014, at 4:58 pm, 🔓Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/17/2014 05:19 PM, Hutton, Andrew wrote:
>>> OP: 15 December 2014 22:44 Justin Uberti Wrote:
>>>> I think making it a requirement is probably premature until we have a
>>>> WG document that explains what should happen when you discover one of
>>>> these network-provided TURN servers.
>>>> Once https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schwartz-rtcweb-return-04 is
>>>> accepted as a WG doc, we can add a requirement for support for RETURN
>>>> and server discovery.
>>>> 
>>>> Unclear whether it needs to be MUST-strength until we get some
>>>> implementation feedback though.
>>>> 
>>> -transports already states " WebRTC browsers MUST support configuration of STUN and TURN servers, both from browser configuration and from an application".
>>> 
>>> So it looks like we already have a requirement but no explanation of what should happen when both are available.
>> 
>> The last times we've talked about this, people have imagined configuring this via the same mechanism as configuring HTTP proxies (nonstandard script at a nonstandard URL).
>> 
>> Autodiscovery may be preferable, but it's not clear that it removes the need for the script-like things.
> 
> If there is, gathering that requirement seems important.  Mark Nottingham was beginning an effort around WPAD standardization (or something that resembled it).  CC'ing him in case there is useful status on that front.
> 
> -d
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Looks like we need to adopt draft-schwartz-rtcweb-return and explain this stuff. I would certainly support that and put some effort into getting this done.
>>> 
>>> Andy
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/