IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)" <jlaurens@cisco.com> Fri, 27 September 2013 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jlaurens@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E01921F9048 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id azNDoeL-d0up for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:44:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729D421F8F2E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:44:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15221; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1380311043; x=1381520643; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=thUEN4US7XN5ozc35nb6FHS5kK65TdZHe4fm5528soM=; b=AzLHST2dyqPgfTNgQRnwginkQAkSpGew1GqCJhplQdVf94Fdo1SwCKlP LQ/6gAUus0MFidH2cy/UUsKVzGqh40hjKL37x0oU8v9BwxNr0dEWAgtfi N80UEgkXpfDCbo3P7xwMeC30Z7NyWkKsr/XWhrZtwhYsNLRmPOgNqhmqM A=;
X-Files: smime.p7s : 4391
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlwFAOHeRVKtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABbgwc4UsACSoEhFm0HgiUBAQEDAQEBAWsQCwIBCBgKJAIlCyUCBBMIBodyBgy5YwSPIC0LAgKDG4EBA5AngTCYIIFmgT6CKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.90,995,1371081600"; d="p7s'?scan'208,217"; a="265463786"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2013 19:44:01 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r8RJi0M4021008 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:44:00 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([169.254.7.157]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 14:44:00 -0500
From: "Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)" <jlaurens@cisco.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11
Thread-Index: AQHOu5p8y6zfKo6w9EyQ/vWuUguPDZnaUFoA
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 19:44:00 +0000
Message-ID: <FCBEDCB500188C488DA30C874B94F80E1BFCD813@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com>
References: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11667BBA0@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <523c6d3d.c9d1440a.3b96.7499SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAD6AjGRXr5kPRQdN+4jkgXHciN3NE7HiRmsb7kaYuzwHEPa7ZA@mail.gmail.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1166CC702@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A0CDABB@008-AM1MPN1-042.mgdnok.nokia.com> <9304FCD1-7727-4F98-A810-F75D48769128@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-00g+tCDoV2_4sL5mwk6vHJRpM-TOX9Xv8C_ayvfMGhHA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-00g+tCDoV2_4sL5mwk6vHJRpM-TOX9Xv8C_ayvfMGhHA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.82.232.25]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5C65E9AC-0AA3-4DA3-9084-33C272C002EA"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] TURN server address via DHCP, WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 27 Sep 2013 19:44:12 -0000

What is the usual "business model" for this? Assume in most cases the servers are hosted by folks who actually have a revenue stream from the app that is leveraging the servers.

Do we have some idea as to how the browser folks want to pay for the "WebRTC turn tax"?




On Sep 27, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> Agree. I still think that extending PAC files to include TURN information is the right way to go.
> 
> PAC files can already be discovered via DHCP or DNS, there is no need to reinvent this wheel.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> I think we need to give some advise to the browsers vendors on what they should implement to find turn servers
> 
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 5:13 AM, "Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com" <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Cullen Jennings wrote:
> >>
> >> I will note that browsers have many ways to learn about HTTP proxies from
> >> the network and it seems to me that using some of theses same technique
> >> might also be a good way to learn about TURN servers.
> >
> > I agree. I assume that in enterprises it would be the same people managing both of these.
> >
> > Is there something the IETF can or should do about this, or do we just assume it will happen? A new DHCP option is something the IETF could easily do, but I also doubt how usable that would be.
> >
> > Markus
> _______________________________________________
> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email