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

Simon Perreault <> Fri, 24 January 2014 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBCBB1A0026 for <>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:30:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.436
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lPL-TfSyG89p for <>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3641A0010 for <>; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 08:30:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:3e97:eff:fe0b:dd8a]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F613403F8; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:30:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:30:34 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Parthasarathi R <>,
References: <> <009601cf17ca$5723cb70$056b6250$> <> <004501cf18a1$913c4080$b3b4c180$> <> <001c01cf1920$a00c9220$e025b660$>
In-Reply-To: <001c01cf1920$a00c9220$e025b660$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:30:38 -0000

Le 2014-01-24 11:23, Parthasarathi R a écrit :
> I could not understand how does it make sense for you to refer "TURN" in the
> requirement whereas it implies "PCP" or "ICE-TCP" or "TURN over WebSocket"
> in the solution.

I understand the text you're suggesting to mean that WebRTC clients 
would be required support at least one in the set { TURN, ICE-TCP, TURN 
over WebSocket, PCP }. This would be broken. A client that chooses to 
support, for example, only PCP would be ridiculously broken. All clients 
MUST support TURN as a base traversal mechanism. Other mechanisms are 
icing on the cake.

I'm fairly sure this is not what you were suggesting though, since that 
would be so obviously broken. That's why I said that your suggestion 
makes no sense to me.

DTN made easy, lean, and smart -->
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        -->
STUN/TURN server               -->