[rtcweb] Proxy browsing (Was: Open data channel issues)

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Sun, 02 March 2014 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E971A0B08 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 13:34:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.925
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.925 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id brpxpcrcnTNX for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 13:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-x22f.google.com (mail-vc0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CC01A0B29 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 13:34:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ij19so2804833vcb.6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 13:34:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=wVlJrUDuPXjGGQrN7he3r8Dk4eIeLJwAvlHj1A4k84w=; b=Ooaszfkv795LkvYy+RAYG49Lpu89dfSzZEkxHcsw2ra+TGVMnERHKRLc7akgt/gfMj w6X7S8+SecIF0omvDyiZ4f35kP2KjIIC3z5mEm87Jb563SlOxJwd49n3EBEIvfhEQt2R 33MHgLPaPyiVpE2ZgOFqh6d8pgbLubtA+zaXj6eOSNmOzl7Hw/+16tQ3hGrkbRl+fCoO XLDAOMnDIVZaGrwlWDPpri3up83qCsZSmFgB8Denb9ghCUMKkaeyNKPPkrTh7vtASG6S AZqE3g3AOPsW7t0C0Im4WjdEDpbN4aTqTJ6Ynq099P0Nuxz/F/iF1FrX/KR8/bk9+AZL SIFA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; bh=wVlJrUDuPXjGGQrN7he3r8Dk4eIeLJwAvlHj1A4k84w=; b=VjY+infhaDfzWseIo2If3PNjOCd71Z/32b9yfl5BBsduSVhyRMUhSWb1y31+Cf2G0q xnfEXZL19vD8EHeWNoEzrY/UgnpcfOpsX1LBdLHFvOSQ53JGspB1B50n3gs4U4WNRydZ zX2Xthxv74T9dt7EWcwqJ7+lpcyMq4RS84Ks56/utGGZd98l/wZ83o1ivwUJwrfvEULg 3aftt+M4miXJJaY4iED8smfPNYBIBTN6fOzBTLXWElAUFPuQC2J8nJlQaLbqVEFjjPq8 jJIiVgo5xDl9X+LzG8mkulPkKyx+5/UxUUV+jaoEl5NNJEUk9y9hFNUWUZRyLGsqXSKY kT8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlYteGpJIDmKbx9UNOwFCBkDrwYPWlKXBd/EIo1RjvjV/m+Qi4XF72oaAwZeIy/gGb4J9UI5CmJel7i3WcXrTJOShb97UJ5W/ufEW/x0/AP7EyiB8q7TmoVxUZKVvX4FW+O15zerFOy+CTDU9uycN9UKeqMw8qiSIivrXb4Vw1CJWSFkk3rf684NuSliMyKYRhonlRi
X-Received: by 10.220.147.16 with SMTP id j16mr3878607vcv.28.1393796063025; Sun, 02 Mar 2014 13:34:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.89.170 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 13:34:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 13:34:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1qYqsO0VOzwqMmZ5SP_DmrPbE_zm-tYgNT5r-Du5y5aQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3436d239f47604f3a66fef
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/ruFRIocbkSsVaL7GjV_N_y-q9u0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: [rtcweb] Proxy browsing (Was: Open data channel issues)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 21:34:44 -0000

Can you explain more about the specific issue for "U-C 7: Proxy browsing"?
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-07#section-3.2)

There are existing implementations that do this exact thing, so I don't
know if anything needs to be done on our side to support this.

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Michael Tuexen <
Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Magnus asked me to send a list of open issues regarding data channels
> to the list. Here is my current list:
>
>
> * Priority
>   The W3C hasn't defined it yet. Neither for the (S)RTP media nor for the
>   data channels. We agreed on using a non strict policy for the data
> channels
>   (some sort of wighted fair queueing). That is all.
>
> * Protocol
>   It seems not to be clear what needs to be provided when registering a
>   (sub)-protocol at IANA. And the name of the registry is unclear...
>
> * SCTP parameters.
>   There was discussed the issue how to set SCTP parameters, especially
> path.max.retrans
>   and association.max.retrans. Also HB.Interval might be of interest.
>   RFC 4060 recommends path.max.retrans=5, association.max.retrans=10, but
> has multihoming
>   in mind. To avoid the dormant state, path.max.retrans =
> association.max.retrans should be used.
>   I would suggest 10 for this value. Should HEARTBEATs be disabled?
>
> * U-C 7: Proxy browsing
>
> * Alternate CC for SCTP
>   Currently there is only the standard CC. However, in some places
> negotiation of CC is
>   mentioned.
>
> I'm currently going through the backlog of comments regarding the data
> channels
> ID and I'll try to address the issues. If I find other issues, I send an
> update
> to the above list.
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>