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

Hi Karl,

Please look into draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-03.txt for
the initial understanding. The discussion about RTCWeb firewall/NAT is going
on in  Pntaw mailing alias.

Hope you agree that TURN does not mean "PCP" or "ICE-TCP" or "TURN over
WebSocket" in the requirement level after reading the documents.

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Stahl [mailto:karl.stahl@intertex.se]
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 10:02 PM
> To: 'Parthasarathi R'; 'Simon Perreault'; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: SV: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
> requirements-12
> 
> Where can I find: " "PCP" or "ICE-TCP" or "TURN over WebSocket" in the
> solution. " ?
> (Haven't followed for a while.)
> 
> /Karl
> 
> 
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] För Parthasarathi R
> Skickat: den 24 januari 2014 17:23
> Till: 'Simon Perreault'; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Ämne: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
> 
> Simon,
> 
> I could not understand how does it make sense for you to refer "TURN"
> in the
> requirement whereas it implies "PCP" or "ICE-TCP" or "TURN over
> WebSocket"
> in the solution.
> 
> Thanks
> Partha
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon
> > Perreault
> > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 7:48 PM
> > To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on
> > draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
> > requirements-12
> >
> > Le 2014-01-23 20:13, Parthasarathi R a écrit :
> > > Hi Stefan,
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for providing the background. We are in the same page
> > w.r.t
> > > ICE. My concern is w.r.t TURN word usage only. It will be great in
> > case
> > > "TURN" is replaced with "Firewall traversal" in the below mentioned
> > snippet
> > > of the draft.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > Sec 3.3.4.1
> > > the service provider would like to be able to provide several STUN
> > and TURN
> > > servers (via the app) to the browser;
> > >
> > > Sec 3.3.5.1
> > > It must be possible to configure the browsers used in the
> enterprise
> > with
> > > network specific STUN and TURN servers.
> > >
> > > The RTCWEB functionality will need to utilize both network specific
> > STUN and
> > > TURN resources and STUN and TURN servers provisioned by the web
> > application.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sec 4.2
> > >
> > >   F31     The browser must be able to use several STUN
> > >             and TURN servers
> > >     ---------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > >     F32     There browser must support that STUN and TURN
> > >             servers to use are supplied by other entities
> > >             than via the web application (i.e. the network
> > >             provider).
> > >     ---------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > >
> > > Appendix A
> > >
> > >
> > >   A22     The Web API must provide means for the application to
> > specify
> > > several STUN and/or TURN servers to use.
> > > </snip>
> > >
> > > Also, Could you plese add the statement in the line of that
> > > "Firewall traversal mechanism in this document shall be TURN,
> > > ICE-TCP, TURN
> > over
> > > WebSocket, PCP" to provide more clarity.
> >
> > FWIW, I would completely disagree with that change. It makes no sense
> > to me.
> >
> > Simon
> > --
> > DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
> > NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> > STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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