IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Wed, 13 November 2013 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 09B4121E809A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:23:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.536
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.713, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 TMEtTkK4Op3j for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:23:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E2BB21E805F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:23:03 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f1c8e000005ceb-ac-528328d54ca2
Received: from ESESSHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id BA.8E.23787.5D823825; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:23:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.328.9; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:23:01 +0100
Message-ID: <5283291E.7090108@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:24:14 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi (NSN - IN/Bangalore)" <parthasarathi.ravindran@nsn.com>, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <5282391D.3050002@ericsson.com> <40AFDF4AF1909E4CB42B6D91CE6C419D19C63196@SGSIMBX006.nsn-intra.net>
In-Reply-To: <40AFDF4AF1909E4CB42B6D91CE6C419D19C63196@SGSIMBX006.nsn-intra.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupnluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3VveqRnOQwfZ+XYtjfV1sFs9alzNZ rP3Xzu7A7HFlwhVWjyVLfjJ5/Fx/lT2AOYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY/LPu8wFm7kq5j5ax9bA eJqji5GTQ0LAROLT8teMELaYxIV769m6GLk4hAQOMUr0HPjPDOEsZ5SY/Pw6C0gVr4C2xL6p HUwgNouAqsS1O71gcTYBC4mbPxrZQGxRgWCJ868Ws0PUC0qcnPmEBWSQiMA6RonNjauZQRLC Ao4S82ZMBGsQEsiXmLnjFlgDp0CAxMQ7PUBxDqCTxCV6GoNAwswCehJTrrYwQtjyEs1bZzND tGpLNDR1sE5gFJyFZN0sJC2zkLQsYGRexciem5iZk15uuIkRGKgHt/zW3cF46pzIIUZpDhYl cd4Pb52DhATSE0tSs1NTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTByL86a3Lb/q5Xvdm+2GNEXFof+zqx8 ov3xnNSN0w0+nrp8NkZuZQIl2TfbAwryhedM/BCu++rGW4aCmK7fggdZj/3hvTyhyjyWl+3d SqOu/9v4RWbd3VW7pd6OqeOWO9dCNoaILLHUSsm+fb/SHrVL7ZDfxmsRduZtunNYmg2XjNZb pkiT30osxRmJhlrMRcWJAPbdsmkiAgAA
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01
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: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:23:09 -0000

Hi Partha

On 2013-11-12 19:33, Ravindran, Parthasarathi (NSN - IN/Bangalore) wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
> 
> ICE-TCP shall be used by WebRTC gateways and conference scenario. The
> related usecases are discussed in
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pntaw/current/msg00181.html
> (PNTAW mailing alias). So, it should not be simply be removed.
> '

Sorry, I don't understand what your use case is for ICE-TCP. When do you
need to establish an end-to-end TCP connection between two WebRTC
endpoints. I fail to see the motivation for this given that you are
going to establish a PeerConnection across it, with the purpose of
running STUN, RTP, DTLS-SRTP and DTLS/SCTP messages across it.

So please elaborate on why ICE-TCP with an framing for datagrams is not
just redundant from a functionality perspective with TURN/TCP or
TURN/TLS/TCP?

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email