Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 TURN/IPV6 RFC 6156.

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 12 September 2013 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 5DBA821E8201 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 q-vMhpqW2XEH for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s10.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s10.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.85]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2F921E820E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU169-W79 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s10.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:57:01 -0700
X-TMN: [cLJzK//TCDafmuk7MyKP12FqiXDT1RW1mHsPdvb7gH0=]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W797519629955A6BE34B64B933A0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_a796e556-5b05-4be3-9481-4be2829ec8f9_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 12:57:00 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BBC905@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <20130903094045.23789.92925.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>, <5225B1AF.7050906@alvestrand.no>, <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BBC905@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Sep 2013 19:57:01.0124 (UTC) FILETIME=[3ED25040:01CEAFF2]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 TURN/IPV6 RFC 6156.
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: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 19:57:07 -0000

Andrew Hutton said: 

> Currently draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01 does not say anything about IPV6 which I assume it should. Specifically I am thinking that it needs to state a requirement to support RFC6156 support "Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Extension for IPv6".
> 
> I am not sure how much we need to say about webrtc client procedures around RFC6156 and whether they should be included in the draft-ietf-rtcweb-transport or whether it is something we should add to our nat/firewall draft (draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations).  Any opinions on this?

[BA] Adding it to the NAT/Firewall draft makes the most sense to me.  Among other things, it might provide more of an opportunity to get into some of the "Happy Eyeballs" issues that have come up, such as relative prioritization of IPv4 versus IPv6.