IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Clarification in draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-11

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com> Mon, 08 February 2016 11:07 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@unify.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 7C6B61ACEE4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 03:07:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 7LLXaDGDTjlt for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 03:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx11.unify.com (mx11.unify.com [62.134.46.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FC1E1ACEF0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 03:07:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by mx11.unify.com (Server) with ESMTP id C822B1EB8423; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:07:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.37.243]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.03.0279.002; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:07:49 +0100
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Clarification in draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-11
Thread-Index: AQHRYkTl13SG26SxHUenzLp8aaPApp8h+wNA
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:07:48 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E99B4D3@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <F63DF3E8-51BF-4142-923A-663D053483C8@iii.ca> <CABcZeBOjYyQP10sSK91EvaCnW0c-ei+UJqk5KOkTG4CEjE=gzQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXchQTa4VEawdPeKbwP0QStcxGifhL-vboxhPTKEEFfuQ@mail.gmail.com> <56B847E2.8060109@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <56B847E2.8060109@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E99B4D3MCHP04MSXglobal_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Ql25ljiug06xEAYJiQsjDl1SSDI>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Clarification in draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-11
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 11:07:55 -0000

Cullen's suggestion also seems reasonable to me and reflects what we intended to say anyway.

Andy



From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
Sent: 08 February 2016 07:47
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Clarification in draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-11

This seems reasonable.

Filed https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/rtcweb-transport/issues/12 so as to not forget.

On 02/05/2016 07:28 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:

I think that Cullen's request is reasonable.

I really don't understand the obsession with labeling.  Branding something as less than 100% "compliant" if they don't use the header field seems OK to me.  There are plenty of other places where implementations will be non-compliant. Also, I think that everyone involved understands that the target is still moving.
On Feb 5, 2016 2:59 AM, "Eric Rescorla" <ekr@rtfm.com<mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>> wrote:


On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:16 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca<mailto:fluffy@iii.ca>> wrote:
I think we need to make the ALPN a bit more explicit. We agreed to include the ALPN header so that a proxy knows it might receive video packet rates tunnelled across it. However the text on this is not 100% clear. Right now it says

   If it does so, it MUST support the "ALPN" header as
   specified in [RFC7639],

But some people have posted out including this header is optional in 7639 so there might be some ubiquity here about what is meant. I think we should change the word "support" to "include" to make it clear this needs to be sent to the proxy so that it would read

    If it does so, it MUST include the "ALPN" header as
   specified in [RFC7639],

I believe that correctly reflects what we intended on this. There is no requirement for the proxy to understand or do anything with this header. Old proxies will just ignore it and cary on as if it was not there.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if it were restricted to browsers. However,
we don't want to careful about retroactively branding endpoints which aren't
browsers but can talk to WebRTC clients as noncompliant. Maybe this
is like codecs where they are "WebRTC Compatible"?

-Ekr

Cullen

(with my individual contributor hat on)


_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb


_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb




_______________________________________________

rtcweb mailing list

rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb




--

Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email