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

"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Tue, 21 January 2014 09:18 UTC

Return-Path: <tireddy@cisco.com>
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 B921E1A02C7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:18:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 Pjj018GpLCyV for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:18:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7405B1A00A5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:18:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3626; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390295892; x=1391505492; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=6bAxhNlWs5If2DkYrP3R/eDvb9ON89BWqhDDomKL6YU=; b=Ty6rBG48KLrYrx25a3z2+UNkcL1lVc/eJo01jaaUlWUBUZ3w7oXAMamX o/GIvywkdOlud1AAbanzyWBdxyeXbuHrVMjSDAd8Cc/sbAESvzJj7eAYC o1nGSLFSmnrw6/ViAHDGpjtw4H+m7uYl11SUG/7Pom0S/ZbEaz6RP3D1c U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFAE063lKtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABZgws4VrsNT4EPFnSCJQEBAQMBAQEBCVsHBhECBAEIEQQBAQEKHSIMCxQJCQEEARIIARKHYggNw3cXBI4qAQEeMwuDHoEUBIkPkEWQZoMtgXE5
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,695,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="14305739"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Jan 2014 09:18:12 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com [173.36.12.75]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0L9ICNV020391 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:18:12 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.227]) by xhc-aln-x01.cisco.com ([173.36.12.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 03:18:11 -0600
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>, "'Chenxin (Xin)'" <hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.com>, "'Hutton, Andrew'" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>, 'Christer Holmberg' <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
Thread-Index: Ac8WibJ5fX0vYar0RiW+sWrLkC2s3g==
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:18:10 +0000
Message-ID: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A2428E32D@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.58.147]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:18:14 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Magnus
> Westerlund
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 3:29 PM
> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Chenxin (Xin)'; 'Hutton, Andrew'; 'Christer Holmberg';
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> 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.

Yes, there could other solutions to solve the FW problem for example by using PCP (http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-penno-rtcweb-pcp-00#section-3.1) 

-Tiru.

> 
> 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  +46 10 7148287
> Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb