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

"Karl Stahl" <karl.stahl@intertex.se> Fri, 24 January 2014 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <karl.stahl@intertex.se>
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 D420A1A0023 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:32:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=no
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 6glJTjohwcXz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:32:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.it-norr.com (smtp.it-norr.com [80.244.64.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CDDD1A0010 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:32:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([90.229.134.75]) by smtp.it-norr.com (Telecom3 SMTP service) with ASMTP id 201401241732236173; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:32:23 +0100
From: Karl Stahl <karl.stahl@intertex.se>
To: 'Parthasarathi R' <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>, 'Simon Perreault' <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2428E32D@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <009601cf17ca$5723cb70$056b6250$@co.in> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CF32B82@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <004501cf18a1$913c4080$b3b4c180$@co.in> <52E27630.3030300@viagenie.ca> <001c01cf1920$a00c9220$e025b660$@co.in>
In-Reply-To: <001c01cf1920$a00c9220$e025b660$@co.in>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:32:22 +0100
Message-ID: <0b4201cf1921$dbcc2cc0$93648640$@stahl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac8ZDytg8iMHIFZPTqOCVAuS6GLn1QAELjvQAABi4aA=
Content-Language: sv
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
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: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:32:31 -0000

Where can I find: " "PCP" or "ICE-TCP" or "TURN over WebSocket" in the
solution. " ?
(Haven't followed for a while.)

/Karl


-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] För Parthasarathi R
Skickat: den 24 januari 2014 17:23
Till: 'Simon Perreault'; rtcweb@ietf.org
Ämne: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on
draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12

Simon,

I could not understand how does it make sense for you to refer "TURN" in the
requirement whereas it implies "PCP" or "ICE-TCP" or "TURN over WebSocket"
in the solution.

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon 
> Perreault
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 7:48 PM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on 
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
> requirements-12
> 
> Le 2014-01-23 20:13, Parthasarathi R a écrit :
> > Hi Stefan,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for providing the background. We are in the same page
> w.r.t
> > ICE. My concern is w.r.t TURN word usage only. It will be great in
> case
> > "TURN" is replaced with "Firewall traversal" in the below mentioned
> snippet
> > of the draft.
> >
> > <snip>
> > Sec 3.3.4.1
> > the service provider would like to be able to provide several STUN
> and TURN
> > servers (via the app) to the browser;
> >
> > Sec 3.3.5.1
> > It must be possible to configure the browsers used in the enterprise
> with
> > network specific STUN and TURN servers.
> >
> > The RTCWEB functionality will need to utilize both network specific
> STUN and
> > TURN resources and STUN and TURN servers provisioned by the web
> application.
> >
> >
> > Sec 4.2
> >
> >   F31     The browser must be able to use several STUN
> >             and TURN servers
> >     ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >     F32     There browser must support that STUN and TURN
> >             servers to use are supplied by other entities
> >             than via the web application (i.e. the network
> >             provider).
> >     ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Appendix A
> >
> >
> >   A22     The Web API must provide means for the application to
> specify
> > several STUN and/or TURN servers to use.
> > </snip>
> >
> > Also, Could you plese add the statement in the line of that 
> > "Firewall traversal mechanism in this document shall be TURN, 
> > ICE-TCP, TURN
> over
> > WebSocket, PCP" to provide more clarity.
> 
> FWIW, I would completely disagree with that change. It makes no sense 
> to me.
> 
> Simon
> --
> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> _______________________________________________
> 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