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

["Parthasarathi R" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stefan,

The word has to be "NAT/Firewall traversal" instead of "Firewall traversal".

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parthasarathi R [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 6:44 AM
> To: 'Stefan Håkansson LK'; 'Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)'; 'Magnus
> Westerlund'; 'Chenxin (Xin)'; 'Hutton, Andrew'; 'Christer Holmberg';
> '[e-mail]'
> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
> requirements-12
> 
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> Thanks a lot for providing the background. We are in the same page
> w.r.t ICE. My concern is w.r.t TURN word usage only. It will be great
> in case "TURN" is replaced with "Firewall traversal" in the below
> mentioned snippet of the draft.
> 
> <snip>
> Sec 3.3.4.1
> the service provider would like to be able to provide several STUN and
> TURN servers (via the app) to the browser;
> 
> Sec 3.3.5.1
> It must be possible to configure the browsers used in the enterprise
> with network specific STUN and TURN servers.
> 
> The RTCWEB functionality will need to utilize both network specific
> STUN and TURN resources and STUN and TURN servers provisioned by the
> web application.
> 
> 
> Sec 4.2
> 
>  F31     The browser must be able to use several STUN
>            and TURN servers
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
>    F32     There browser must support that STUN and TURN
>            servers to use are supplied by other entities
>            than via the web application (i.e. the network
>            provider).
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Appendix A
> 
> 
>  A22     The Web API must provide means for the application to specify
> several STUN and/or TURN servers to use.
> </snip>
> 
> Also, Could you plese add the statement in the line of that "Firewall
> traversal mechanism in this document shall be TURN, ICE-TCP, TURN over
> WebSocket, PCP" to provide more clarity.
> 
> Thanks
> Partha
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Håkansson LK [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 3:48 PM
> > To: Parthasarathi R; 'Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)'; Magnus
> Westerlund;
> > 'Chenxin (Xin)'; 'Hutton, Andrew'; Christer Holmberg; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-
> and-
> > requirements-12
> >
> > On 2014-01-23 00:33, Parthasarathi R wrote:
> > > Hi Thiru,
> > >
> > > I agree with you that PCP is yet another alternative. It is not
> clear
> > to me
> > > from your mail whether you are fine with the word "TURN" in the
> > requirement
> > > draft to refer PCP as a solution in the later stage.
> > >
> > > It is confusing to me when I'm discussing about WebRTC FW proposal
> to
> > others
> > > as they assume that it is "TURN" as per requirement draft.
> >
> > In the early phases of the use-case draft we did not use the words
> > "ICE", "STUN" or "TURN" - things were stated more technology neutral.
> >
> > But at some stage it was pretty clear that ICE was the solution the
> WG
> > was going for; and at the same time many wanted to have ICE specific
> > requirements (such as "The browser must be able to use several STUN
> and
> > TURN servers") included.
> >
> > So we made the change and started talking about ICE, STUN and TURN in
> > the document (but note that in the description it is still said
> > "Assuming that ICE will be used").
> >
> > I am not super happy about having the requirements depend on choosing
> a
> > certain solution, but at the same time I think that ICE is a corner
> > stone so for me it is livable to have in the document.
> >
> > Stefan
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Partha
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:48 PM
> > >> To: Magnus Westerlund; Parthasarathi R; 'Chenxin (Xin)'; 'Hutton,
> > >> Andrew'; 'Christer Holmberg'; [e-mail]
> > >> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-
> cases-
> > and-
> > >> requirements-12
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Magnus
> > >>> Westerlund
> > >>> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 3:29 PM
> > >>> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Chenxin (Xin)'; 'Hutton, Andrew'; 'Christer
> > >> Holmberg';
> > >>> [e-mail]
> > >>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-
> cases-
> > >> and-
> > >>> requirements-12
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Partha,
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 2014-01-18 19:18, Parthasarathi R wrote:
> > >>>> Hi Magnus,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have trouble in the usage of TURN instead of media relay
> server
> > >> in
> > >>>> the requirement document as TURN is the solution and not the
> > >>> requirement.
> > >>>
> > >>> Noted, I like to get more input from the WG if they think this
> > should
> > >> be
> > >>> changed to use media relay.
> > >>>
> > >>>> ICE-TCP and TURN server are two different relay mechanism
> whenever
> > >>>> browser is not possible to transport the media in UDP.
> > >>> My personal opinion is that the above is incorrect statement. I
> > >> believe you
> > >>> may be able to realize a higher layer gateway using ICE-TCP. But
> > ICE
> > >> TCP per
> > >>> say is not a relay mechanism. To my understanding the core part
> of
> > >> ICE-TCP
> > >>> is the establishment of an end-to-end TCP connection between the
> > ICE
> > >>> agents. I also note that with our current transport stacks you
> > still
> > >> need a
> > >>> framing on top of the TCP connection to realize the datagrams
> that
> > >> carries
> > >>> the RTP or DTLS packets.
> > >>>
> > >>>  TURN server is good in case
> > >>>> of browser-to-browser scenario wherein ICE-TCP is preferred
> > >> approach
> > >>>> for browser-to-webrtc gateway. The related mail thread is
> > discussed
> > >> in
> > >>>> PNTAW as
> > >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/pntaw/current/msg00185.html.
> > >> So,
> > >>>> I preferred to have the separate requirement as discussed in
> this
> > >> mail
> > >>>> thread which leads to the conclusion as part of PNTAW alias
> > >> discussion.
> > >>> Please let me know your opinion on the same.
> > >>>
> > >>> I personally are uncertain if there exist any need for changing
> the
> > >> use-case
> > >>> and requirements draft. I would like to note the following text
> in
> > >> the use-case
> > >>> and requirements draft:
> > >>>
> > >>>    This document was developed in an initial phase of the work
> with
> > >>>    rather minor updates at later stages.  It has not really
> served
> > as
> > >> a
> > >>>    tool in deciding features or scope for the WGs efforts so far.
> > It
> > >> is
> > >>>    proposed to be used in a later phase to evaluate the protocols
> > and
> > >>>    solutions developed by the WG.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, I believe the basic NAT/FW requirement exist. It might be to
> > >> solution
> > >>> focused in its description. However, it is also clear that we
> have
> > a
> > >> number of
> > >>> solution parts that exist beyond the requirements.
> > >> Yes, there could other solutions to solve the FW problem for
> example
> > by
> > >> using PCP (http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-penno-rtcweb-pcp-
> > >> 00#section-3.1)
> > >>
> > >> -Tiru.
> > >>
> > >>> So, I still see need WG participants to provide feedback on this
> to
> > >> determine
> > >>> if there exist any consensus to modify the use-case document or
> > not.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers
> > >>>
> > >>> Magnus Westerlund
> > >>>
> > >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > --
> > >> -
> > >>> Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
> > >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > --
> > >> -
> > >>> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
> > >>> Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
> > >>> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto:
> > [e-mail]
> > >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > --
> > >> -
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> rtcweb mailing list
> > >>> [e-mail]
> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rtcweb mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> > >
> >
> > =