Re: [rtcweb] HTTP Fallback draft

My perspective is that we can make a huge impact simply by codifying the
rules for doing basic things like TURN over 443 (with or without TLS), HTTP
CONNECT, etc. Running RTP over HTTP could help us get closer to 100%
coverage, but I think we start to enter the area of diminishing returns.

As such, I'd like to see us work towards a best practices document for
establishing sessions in these restricted environments; I think such a
document would be in scope for RTCWEB.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>wrote:

> Hello Ted,
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:50:07 -0700
> Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
> wrote:
> > > That said, I guess there's a different question I should be asking to
> > > the chairs: since there seems to be no related item in the milestones,
> > > is such a work actually in line with what is the expected outcome of
> the
> > > WG? Considering the draft basically addresses a new transport for RTP
> > > and something that probably needs to be negotiated as well, I guess
> this
> > > could be seen as belonging elsewhere (AVTCORE and/or MMUSIC?).
> > > Nevertheless, my feeling is it belongs more here than somewhere else,
> > > especially considering we're specifying a solution that will be
> deployed
> > > in browsers and, as such, people will expect it to work wherever other
> > > web applications do.
> >
> > My take on this is that the actual work on developing the alternate
> > transport for RTP would have to occur elsewhere and, frankly, I think
> > it is a large enough task that it would likely require its own working
> > group (much as the RTP congestion control topic ended up as a BoF and
> > hopefully will become its own working group).  That doesn't mean that
> > the work couldn't be informed by the RTCWEB use cases, but I think it
> > would have to be done elsewhere.
> >
> > I'd personally suggest starting with a discussion with the ADs on
> > whether a BoF on this topic would be something they might consider.
> > (Note, however, that I have not talked to Cullen about this and Magnus
> > is on vacation, so this is not a "Chairs' response"; just my own
> > thoughts).
> >
>
>
> This makes sense. I'm a bit concerned about the additional time that may
> be needed by going through the process of forming a new WG (compared to
> just adding a milestone to an existing WG, that is), as the final result
> may end up being available much after the original WG completed its works,
> but I see your point.
>
> I'll wait for more feedback about this and, if enough people seem
> interested about doing something like this, contacting the ADs and consider
> the next steps may be a good idea.
>
> Lorenzo
>
>
> > regards,
> >
> > Ted Hardie
>
>
> --
> Lorenzo Miniero, COB
>
> Meetecho s.r.l.
> Web Conferencing and Collaboration Tools
> http://www.meetecho.com
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>