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

["Hutton, Andrew" <[e-mail]>]

I also don't see a need to change the existing text as I believe the required use cases are covered even if the descriptions makes some assumptions about the solutions.  

It maybe that it is not the best requirements language but the assumptions are reasonable and I don't see the need to change the text at this stage unless we are missing an important requirement.

Regards
Andy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 20 January 2014 09:59
> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Chenxin (Xin)'; Hutton, Andrew; 'Christer
> Holmberg'; [e-mail]
> 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.
> 
> 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  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------