Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12

[Stefan Håkansson LK <[e-mail]>]

On 2014-01-23 00:33, Parthasarathi R wrote:
> Hi Thiru,
>
> I agree with you that PCP is yet another alternative. It is not clear to me
> from your mail whether you are fine with the word "TURN" in the requirement
> draft to refer PCP as a solution in the later stage.
>
> It is confusing to me when I'm discussing about WebRTC FW proposal to others
> as they assume that it is "TURN" as per requirement draft.

In the early phases of the use-case draft we did not use the words
"ICE", "STUN" or "TURN" - things were stated more technology neutral.

But at some stage it was pretty clear that ICE was the solution the WG
was going for; and at the same time many wanted to have ICE specific
requirements (such as "The browser must be able to use several STUN and
TURN servers") included.

So we made the change and started talking about ICE, STUN and TURN in
the document (but note that in the description it is still said
"Assuming that ICE will be used").

I am not super happy about having the requirements depend on choosing a
certain solution, but at the same time I think that ICE is a corner
stone so for me it is livable to have in the document.

Stefan
>
> Thanks
> Partha
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:48 PM
>> To: Magnus Westerlund; Parthasarathi R; 'Chenxin (Xin)'; 'Hutton,
>> Andrew'; 'Christer Holmberg'; [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
>> requirements-12
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Magnus
>>> Westerlund
>>> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 3:29 PM
>>> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Chenxin (Xin)'; 'Hutton, Andrew'; 'Christer
>> Holmberg';
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-
>> and-
>>> requirements-12
>>>
>>> Hi Partha,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2014-01-18 19:18, Parthasarathi R wrote:
>>>> Hi Magnus,
>>>>
>>>> I have trouble in the usage of TURN instead of media relay server
>> in
>>>> the requirement document as TURN is the solution and not the
>>> requirement.
>>>
>>> Noted, I like to get more input from the WG if they think this should
>> be
>>> changed to use media relay.
>>>
>>>> ICE-TCP and TURN server are two different relay mechanism whenever
>>>> browser is not possible to transport the media in UDP.
>>> My personal opinion is that the above is incorrect statement. I
>> believe you
>>> may be able to realize a higher layer gateway using ICE-TCP. But ICE
>> TCP per
>>> say is not a relay mechanism. To my understanding the core part of
>> ICE-TCP
>>> is the establishment of an end-to-end TCP connection between the ICE
>>> agents. I also note that with our current transport stacks you still
>> need a
>>> framing on top of the TCP connection to realize the datagrams that
>> carries
>>> the RTP or DTLS packets.
>>>
>>>  TURN server is good in case
>>>> of browser-to-browser scenario wherein ICE-TCP is preferred
>> approach
>>>> for browser-to-webrtc gateway. The related mail thread is discussed
>> in
>>>> PNTAW as
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pntaw/current/msg00185.html.
>> So,
>>>> I preferred to have the separate requirement as discussed in this
>> mail
>>>> thread which leads to the conclusion as part of PNTAW alias
>> discussion.
>>> Please let me know your opinion on the same.
>>>
>>> I personally are uncertain if there exist any need for changing the
>> use-case
>>> and requirements draft. I would like to note the following text in
>> the use-case
>>> and requirements draft:
>>>
>>>    This document was developed in an initial phase of the work with
>>>    rather minor updates at later stages.  It has not really served as
>> a
>>>    tool in deciding features or scope for the WGs efforts so far.  It
>> is
>>>    proposed to be used in a later phase to evaluate the protocols and
>>>    solutions developed by the WG.
>>>
>>> So, I believe the basic NAT/FW requirement exist. It might be to
>> solution
>>> focused in its description. However, it is also clear that we have a
>> number of
>>> solution parts that exist beyond the requirements.
>> Yes, there could other solutions to solve the FW problem for example by
>> using PCP (http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-penno-rtcweb-pcp-
>> 00#section-3.1)
>>
>> -Tiru.
>>
>>> So, I still see need WG participants to provide feedback on this to
>> determine
>>> if there exist any consensus to modify the use-case document or not.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Magnus Westerlund
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>> Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
>>> Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
>>> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>