Re: [rtcweb] Discussion of draft-schwartz-rtcweb-return-04

Benjamin Schwartz <bemasc@webrtc.org> Thu, 08 January 2015 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <bemasc@webrtc.org>
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 152491A9082 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:34:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 Czi8RjoZxpF7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f180.google.com (mail-vc0-f180.google.com [209.85.220.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 059BE1A9080 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id im6so1846784vcb.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:34:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SpTzlg2Hn7xFb4O8mDTHGNKW7H4YRuvtrnrJeHPVNo4=; b=BpRFlmbOrsf7Nj2Eq2s2CQwdqbCDDaNmPv+PlPQ7hiia6IlHeKyLIoh6yddeK7iaxS 2zJZ06UCOP16FtLI6i1TA9/tmzRvebLvZOi344tBFhJjpnp1dv0WyQzibEgw5HwYU+eQ I53iwojjQYlRWggRmaSOvOor8GE8c92gFB4ICmwc8JVonNFVzRtb5yw51yH+iP6HKJzO h1pcsB8EhZuBFCQdaaY9879HMxu8NKHUxzJiY8L9KiaQhcRBFIFJu3h/280pL7S7CQIm nb62hZszDykeoDRWU1Pufj2uYt0QLvzJzbPOqCDqydrNsD6m+BRhz0rqpO8Dxb/w4sAp PXGQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmsMmwcWmHYmEUhbgnUewx/JOriK8Gzdl1BnIDc/TOBW4bZ4e1wxfNZxdHg/t3x4lSTgS+g
X-Received: by 10.52.25.169 with SMTP id d9mr6771837vdg.85.1420745685212; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:34:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com (mail-vc0-f173.google.com. [209.85.220.173]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o5sm1302032vdv.24.2015.01.08.11.34.44 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id kv19so1831543vcb.4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:34:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.115.101 with SMTP id jn5mr7093641vdb.76.1420745684221; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 11:34:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.52.54.194 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:34:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMAbe9cnkBz6GkKLG6VjbTnMp-Lvd8o=VLb+_7mDjNKNww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMAbe9cnkBz6GkKLG6VjbTnMp-Lvd8o=VLb+_7mDjNKNww@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:34:44 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsD3KnE+thwvUTp4r=6oqv=QEdQWr-Ev4-4cwD3OuFkHnw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benjamin Schwartz <bemasc@webrtc.org>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec548a43fd32ed8050c292141
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/ShioAjsEXXSE5YjsCYtcb9Xwfrw>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Discussion of draft-schwartz-rtcweb-return-04
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:34:50 -0000

For what it's worth, regarding scope, my perspective is that the document
does not create any new protocol extensions or API points.  Its only
purpose is to lay out in detail the expected interaction between
externally-provided TURN servers (like those found by TRAM autodiscovery)
and WebRTC, which is currently extremely under-specified.  Specifically, it
explains that externally-provided TURN servers are _proxies_, not just
additional TURN servers like those listed in the RTCPeerConnection
constructor arguments.  Treating these servers as proxies (in the
particular manner specified) allows us to preserve (and enhance) some
important performance, connectivity, and privacy properties of WebRTC.

This document only imposes requirements (of any strength) on WebRTC
implementations that intend to implement a mechanism for using TURN servers
that were not indicated by the application.  It does not demand that all
browsers add support for such a mechanism, and it does not specify a
preference for any particular TURN configuration mechanism.

On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> During the Honolulu meeting, the chairs agreed to ask for some on-list
> discussion of this draft prior to discussing adoption.  During the holidays
> we dropped the ball on that, for which our apologies.   At this point,
> though, we'd like to see some discussion of the draft--in particular on its
> scope and how it fits into the landscape of work we need to complete
> thanks,
>
> Ted, Cullen, Sean
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>