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

"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Thu, 23 January 2014 05:35 UTC

Return-Path: <tireddy@cisco.com>
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 548F31A01C0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:35:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 dRjfZt14MkBn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:35:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D30331A003E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 21:35:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5387; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390455322; x=1391664922; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=U0lgoesz2OZhtEP26w/wTehTbWhaSNYjhBmwGlzP6LU=; b=SQa8soFzVJB6WfLhZ1Rx8c9yHjrUru7ivMIvk3dfivLdZD87S/Lb4VM/ ZqrJbLmGzdvinkWBGtMjrNJGQZ5GOoVG+M7ntWZBDXWlEFI6yqaw4XnQI 647dUzEHudC7MlH6MgwY70dsYEC2KEZwmyhnJayhvkzeajb1uxj7lBr7r Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkFAJip4FKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABbgww4VrsjT4EVFnSCJQEBAQMBAQEBCVsHBhECBAEIEQQBAQEKHSIMCxQJCQEEARIIARKHYggNxFwXBI4nAQEeMwuDHoEUBIkPkEWQZoMtgXE5
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,704,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="298936239"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Jan 2014 05:35:22 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com [173.37.183.78]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0N5ZLVH007473 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:35:21 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.227]) by xhc-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 23:35:21 -0600
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>, 'Magnus Westerlund' <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "'Chenxin (Xin)'" <hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.com>, "'Hutton, Andrew'" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>, 'Christer Holmberg' <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
Thread-Index: Ac8X/OXReGyIdmBHRwm8gpvGRFWztQ==
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:35:21 +0000
Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2428FC2B@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.75.9]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
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: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:35:25 -0000

Hi Partha,

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parthasarathi R [mailto:partha@parthasarathi.co.in]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:03 AM
> To: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); 'Magnus Westerlund'; 'Chenxin (Xin)';
> 'Hutton, Andrew'; 'Christer Holmberg'; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
> requirements-12
> 
> 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.

I don't see any specific mention in the requirements section that TURN is the only way to solve the WebRTC FW traversal problem.  

-Tiru.

> 
> Thanks
> Partha
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:tireddy@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:48 PM
> > To: Magnus Westerlund; Parthasarathi R; 'Chenxin (Xin)'; 'Hutton,
> > Andrew'; 'Christer Holmberg'; rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on
> > draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
> > requirements-12
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Magnus
> > > Westerlund
> > > Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 3:29 PM
> > > To: Parthasarathi R; 'Chenxin (Xin)'; 'Hutton, Andrew'; 'Christer
> > Holmberg';
> > > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > > 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  +46 10 7148287
> > > Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> > > SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto:
> magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -
> > -
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rtcweb mailing list
> > > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb