Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11

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

Agreed.

So it may be needed but the rtcweb use case draft is about browser requirements.

Andy

________________________________
From: Marc Abrams [[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 12:26 AM
To: Hutton, Andrew
Cc: [e-mail]; Harald Alvestrand; Bernard Aboba
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11

But phones and ATAs and other IoT devices would.

Marc
________________
[phone]



On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Hutton, Andrew <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

The use case draft section 3.2.5.1 states

"It mustbe possibele to configure the browsers used in the enterprise with network specific STUN and TURN servers. This should be possible to achieve by autoconfiguration methods."

I had assumed that this meant using the browser configuration scripts in the same way as the browser would discover the HTTP Proxy I can see that DHCP is also an option which might be useful but I am not sure whether browsers would use it.

Andy


From: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] on behalf of Bernard Aboba [[e-mail]]

Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 1:09 AM

To: Harald Alvestrand; [e-mail]

Subject: Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11




Harald said:



> In this case, it's "only" a DHCP option, but what new DHCP options do we

> have that have become widely used in the last 10 years?



[BA] And of those, which ones are supported by *browsers*?



I do think it is useful for a browser to be able to locate a local TURN server, if this is to happen it will need to be done at the application layer, not via DHCP.






_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb