Re: [rtcweb] [BEHAVE] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-uberti-behave-turn-rest-00.txt

So there are two parts to the proposal - the HTTP request for the
credentials and interactions with WebRTC, and the stateless implementation
that avoids the need for communication between web and TURN servers. And it
is true that other implementations besides the suggested stateless one are
possible, e.g. OAuth2.

Would you prefer that I address the protocol and implementation parts
separately in the document, and mention that other implementations with the
same HTTP protocol are possible? RFC 5766 does something similar, where it
defines the TURN protocol, but in Section 6.2 talks about how a "stateless
stack" implementation can be used to simplify the processing on the TURN
server.

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>wrote:

> The overall proposal by Justin:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-uberti-rtcweb-turn-rest-00
>
> has been implemented in our rfc5766-turn-server for months, and I see
> nothing proprietary in the proposal. I liked the proposal from the
> beginning. Its been discussed and its been quite handy for the users - I
> hear stories of success from the users.  I believe that Philipp shares the
> same view.
>
> One especially good thing about the proposal is that is does not
> contradict by any means to the RFC 5766. It just specifies the way how the
> passwords are stored/generated - and the RFC 5766 does not say anything
> about that matter. It means that Justin's proposal is 100% compatible with
> RFC 5766.
>
> Thanks
> Oleg
> http://code.google.com/p/rfc5766-turn-server/
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Philipp Hancke <fippo@goodadvice.pages.de
> > wrote:
>
>> Am 22.07.2013 22:16, schrieb Adam Roach:
>>
>>> What Justin proposes gets us this inter-vendor interop cheaply and
>>> easily. What you're counterproposing forces people into a single-vendor
>>> (or, at least, partnered) solution, which kinda defeats the purpose of
>>> defining this in an SDO in the first place.
>>>
>>
>> Right. What Justin proposed was originally located at
>> https://code.google.com/p/**webrtc/issues/detail?id=1197<https://code.google.com/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=1197>
>> I liked the plan, implemented it in restund and improved it a litle. It
>> was discussed at https://groups.google.com/**
>> forum/#!topic/discuss-webrtc/**nn8b6UboqRA/discussion<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/discuss-webrtc/nn8b6UboqRA/discussion>and also implemented in rfc-5766-turn-server.
>>
>> Rough consensus and running code...
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> Behave@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>
>