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

Hi Partha,

Personal opinion:

I think the below places the text in the wrong context. The note is in
my mind relevant in the context of the general NAT/FW traversal
requirements, not the one discussing need to support multiple NAT/FW
traversal servers. Thus, I think Section 3.3.2 and thus requirement F29.
Or potentially regarding Requirement F2. Is more appropriate places to
include this.

Cheers

Magnus

On 2014-01-31 02:26, Parthasarathi R wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
> 
> I can live with Simon text in case it is documented in Sec 4.2  as 
> 
>    F31     The browser must be able to use several STUN
>            and TURN servers. Note that TURN support being mandatory 
>            does not preclude the browser from supporting 
>            additional traversal mechanisms.
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
>    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). Note that TURN support being mandatory 
>            does not preclude the browser from supporting 
>            additional traversal mechanisms.
> 
> and also Appendix A:
> 
> A22     The Web API must provide means for the
>            application to specify several STUN and/or
>            TURN servers to use. Note that TURN support being mandatory 
>            does not preclude a Web API from supporting 
>            additional traversal mechanisms.
> 
> Please let me know in case you have any issue in the above text. 
> 
> BTW, just for the record, draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
> does not specify the list of traversal mechanism requirements for WebRTC
> Gateway/Server.
> 
> Thanks
> Partha
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:59 PM
>> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Cb B'; 'Simon Perreault'
>> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
>> requirements-12
>>
>> Hi Partha and WG,
>>
>> I don't see any support for the changes you proposes in this
>> discussion.
>> What I see some support for is to add a statement making clear that
>> there might be additional NAT/Firewall traversal mechanisms than
>> STUN/TURN. Simon proposed:
>>
>> "Note that TURN support being mandatory does not preclude a WebRTC
>>  endpoint from supporting additional traversal mechanisms."
>>
>> However, looking at the document as it is currently written, I am
>> uncertain where this would be added. The first mention of TURN is in
>> Section 3.3.4.1, and that section is focused on the global service
>> provider perspective and the need for location based provisioning of
>> NAT/Firewall traversal server resources.
>>
>> I think it can be added to Section 3.3.5.1 without being misplaced, but
>> it would be given a slightly narrower scope.
>>
>> I any of you want to be more explicit where this should be included,
>> please be. If you are not forthcoming I will request the authors to add
>> this in what they consider sensible position.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Magnus
>>
>>
>> On 2014-01-25 17:46, Parthasarathi R wrote:
>>> Hi Simon,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your understanding about my firewall/NAT related problem
>>> statement in this draft.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have proposed the firewall/NAT related text by which the specific
>>> mechanism is not highlighted in the requirement document as there is
>> no
>>> WG consensus for any of the mechanism including TURN. It is possible
>> to
>>> argue hypothetically in PNTAW alias that PCP is the only mechanism
>>> required in WebRTC endpoint.   Also, I'm more interested in WebRTC
>>> gateway/server (Sec 4.3. of
>>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12) requirements wherein
>> it
>>> is not required to support TURN and the related mail thread is
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pntaw/current/msg00181.html.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IMO, my proposed text without mentioning any firewall/NAT mechanism
>> in
>>> the requirement document helps to move forward without depend on the
>>> solution discussion in PNTAW alias.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Partha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:*Cb B [mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 25, 2014 6:22 AM
>>> *To:* Simon Perreault
>>> *Cc:* rtcweb@ietf.org; Parthasarathi R
>>> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on
>>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 2014 10:17 AM, "Simon Perreault"
>> <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca
>>> <mailto:simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Le 2014-01-24 12:14, Parthasarathi R a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Please note that when non-IETFers read this requirement document,
>>> they come
>>>>> to the conclusion that IETF RTCWeb WG recommends TURN and not other
>>>>> mechanisms. I'm saying that requirement document should not be used
>>> as the
>>>>> mechanism to eliminate the other alternatives when there is a
>> discussion
>>>>> going-on in PNTAW alias. So, I'm asking for the change.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would totally agree with that sentiment, although I don't see your
>>> proposed text change reflecting it accurately. How about simply:
>>>>
>>>> "Note that TURN support being mandatory does not preclude a WebRTC
>>> endpoint from supporting additional traversal mechanisms."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1 for the above text.
>>>
>>> CB
>>>
>>>> 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 <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 

-- 

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------