[rtcweb] Comments on draft-miniero-rtcweb-http-fallback

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 18 October 2012 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 06D9421F8786 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.862
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.862 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VeaWNS3BuP5f for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB1B21F8776 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so6738183lam.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=0nCRT4XjWDJpA8lCFGBRuzlx2ZnPpxm9kNehCPBQPOQ=; b=F3I8D7x8hZGi1tjFf8ZXbtEPSjFF7pIseFm2OEX8JrqHByaeD6bzU/YuIFZI1+lHmF tJgaYTfR225uzkKc1BH3H/hVwNARrZVpJzFtojMWVT5CcZiJTtxlY0CINHBx1+xwt01M 1OmaAvXNZjbl2ciOZskK8AZfU7TcjtwSVFuD3IQslHtwllFBRXGupOJ2eXAEkCdN2fyE XA9e2+yFX+DyzkGICXaI8zovky95hAPTEa3gkeFI28U/XDI3lLizwRmMcj4GNGgGgs6n vAve5fI0WLfE3wzUj7DCg1TNWtjWMsDwgRjaPMgdubTR9cWDkLvOgzuieZiy5XRLp+dz k6lw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.148.40 with SMTP id tp8mr18982914lab.30.1350578856337; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.83.2 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:47:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnU+-kYL4TMWBy1dRt+uS9vBjvFth0uUaCNq02CdO8qf5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-miniero-rtcweb-http-fallback
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, 18 Oct 2012 16:47:45 -0000

This seems grossly inefficient.  Even if you assume that we have to
tolerate the head-of-line blocking properties of a stream transport,
the overhead of HTTP headers is immense.

What is wrong with WebSockets for this use case?

Why is there so much discussion on topology?  It seems that the
topology used for TURN is perfectly good and would require the least
disruption.