Re: [rtcweb] HTTP Fallback draft

Iñaki Baz Castillo <> Tue, 07 August 2012 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5E021F8744 for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.658
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.658 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xast29YyIgzm for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C8B21F8733 for <>; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbgg6 with SMTP id gg6so56995lbb.31 for <>; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=bF4NYAs0JnMujMxl6+cq+VG4Ob3SxQ3YOhq0+ix1d1I=; b=TPS/YeaB7fubHfiwIFnigfqWJ446GsPiqQ0ZTjB1JYVi+SLPEU6xYtua66fSjsb1ry TQmj43jzOdcK0Iqckoav7OO2sCGe5HXMqvgkMNjheq2pEWEcQVfC0iR2tk0JzBzLr7oV mG4xnHIU6UsxsxRNd151aJFGKYJDRfYIk7lZ/7+Sv91pVTD1X7cCSba54vRQmVb4vTTf muZ3m+H8SCovUQSWsryZAidGyAajoe8cLzkophQnj+SjtNreRHpOAkxIen8Y74iQ5ytd SxeZ4WIE2RTofAZjH/fkmN/hYL7oYWaNmHKrP5PgAeACvC1KJJ+PVq/GRwAKcK8lci1w 83rg==
Received: by with SMTP id iq8mr11864228lab.18.1344368069326; Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 12:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120807191226.5b8e7f32@rainpc>
References: <20120807180156.286e74d2@rainpc> <> <20120807191226.5b8e7f32@rainpc>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:34:09 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Lorenzo Miniero <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmSh47oNaYomLJFcGsUeHOXnX770E8kXYotEyVkDciRh5AeI9BUlfPxywduNpW4jCzFXEMB
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] HTTP Fallback draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 19:34:31 -0000

Hi Lorenzo, sorry for opening another thread about this (I didn't
check my unread emails before reading the draft). Please see comments

> Hannes Tschofenig <> wrote:

>> Just to be clear, I don't have objections regarding your draft. I just would like to understand what motives people to run everything over HTTP (besides using HTTP features, which you don't really do).

Honestly I don't like the "all-over-http" vision. Admins filtering
traffic other than HTTP or HTTPS will also do their best efforts for
filtering specific traffic over HTTP, and IMHO making specifications
to run protocolos over HTTP legitimizes those hateful filtering

2012/8/7 Lorenzo Miniero <>om>:

> I agree with you and I'm not really dying to do RTP over HTTP either, but if some scenarios make it impossible for use cases to work (and some firewall/NAT deployers are to blame here, probably) then a fallback mechanism is something that can be nice to have, especially if we're interested in something that "just works".

That's the problem (IMHO): if we make all to work over HTTP then some
day telcos providers will just offer HTTP (as "Internet") and we'll
need to study a new OSI model in which the lowest layer is called

BTW: I sitll don't understand which is the advantage of using RTP over
HTTPS in comparison to TURN over TLS:443. Does is exist?


Iñaki Baz Castillo