Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-07.txt

On 22 Oct 2014, at 16:57, Benjamin Schwartz <bemasc@webrtc.org> wrote:

> FYI, the purpose of the RETURN draft (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schwartz-rtcweb-return-03) is to try to specify the precise interaction and precedence when both the browser and the application provide TURN servers.  (It's not as simple as "one or the other".)
> 
> I haven't considered the issues related to browser-provided STUN servers, though.
Cool! I'll take a look at that. Maybe Haralds draft need to refer to that.

/O
> 
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The advantage of an application configuration is that it can be dynamically provided/updated, based on location based etc - assuming the webpage provider has knowledge about STUN/TURN servers, of course.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Olle E. Johansson
> Sent: 22 October 2014 17:44
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-07.txt
> 
> Section 3.4
> 
> " WebRTC browsers MUST support configuration of STUN and TURN servers,
>    both from browser configuration and from an application."
> 
> 
> Should we mention which takes precedence? If configured in the browser, start with that server.
> If not use the one provided by the application.
> 
> Maybe we should clarify that turn DNS discovery MUST be used to provide failover and load balancing.
> 
> /O
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 