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

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