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

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

Hi Magnus,

I can live with Simon text in case it is documented in Sec 4.2  as 

   F31     The browser must be able to use several STUN
           and TURN servers. Note that TURN support being mandatory 
           does not preclude the browser from supporting 
           additional traversal mechanisms.
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   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). Note that TURN support being mandatory 
           does not preclude the browser from supporting 
           additional traversal mechanisms.

and also Appendix A:

A22     The Web API must provide means for the
           application to specify several STUN and/or
           TURN servers to use. Note that TURN support being mandatory 
           does not preclude a Web API from supporting 
           additional traversal mechanisms.

Please let me know in case you have any issue in the above text. 

BTW, just for the record, draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
does not specify the list of traversal mechanism requirements for WebRTC
Gateway/Server.

Thanks
Partha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 2:59 PM
> To: Parthasarathi R; 'Cb B'; 'Simon Perreault'
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
> requirements-12
> 
> Hi Partha and WG,
> 
> I don't see any support for the changes you proposes in this
> discussion.
> What I see some support for is to add a statement making clear that
> there might be additional NAT/Firewall traversal mechanisms than
> STUN/TURN. Simon proposed:
> 
> "Note that TURN support being mandatory does not preclude a WebRTC
>  endpoint from supporting additional traversal mechanisms."
> 
> However, looking at the document as it is currently written, I am
> uncertain where this would be added. The first mention of TURN is in
> Section 3.3.4.1, and that section is focused on the global service
> provider perspective and the need for location based provisioning of
> NAT/Firewall traversal server resources.
> 
> I think it can be added to Section 3.3.5.1 without being misplaced, but
> it would be given a slightly narrower scope.
> 
> I any of you want to be more explicit where this should be included,
> please be. If you are not forthcoming I will request the authors to add
> this in what they consider sensible position.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus
> 
> 
> On 2014-01-25 17:46, Parthasarathi R wrote:
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for your understanding about my firewall/NAT related problem
> > statement in this draft.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have proposed the firewall/NAT related text by which the specific
> > mechanism is not highlighted in the requirement document as there is
> no
> > WG consensus for any of the mechanism including TURN. It is possible
> to
> > argue hypothetically in PNTAW alias that PCP is the only mechanism
> > required in WebRTC endpoint.   Also, I’m more interested in WebRTC
> > gateway/server (Sec 4.3. of
> > draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12) requirements wherein
> it
> > is not required to support TURN and the related mail thread is
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pntaw/current/msg00181.html.
> >
> >
> >
> > IMO, my proposed text without mentioning any firewall/NAT mechanism
> in
> > the requirement document helps to move forward without depend on the
> > solution discussion in PNTAW alias.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Partha
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:*Cb B [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 25, 2014 6:22 AM
> > *To:* Simon Perreault
> > *Cc:* [e-mail]; Parthasarathi R
> > *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on
> > draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2014 10:17 AM, "Simon Perreault"
> <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le 2014-01-24 12:14, Parthasarathi R a écrit :
> >>
> >>> Please note that when non-IETFers read this requirement document,
> > they come
> >>> to the conclusion that IETF RTCWeb WG recommends TURN and not other
> >>> mechanisms. I'm saying that requirement document should not be used
> > as the
> >>> mechanism to eliminate the other alternatives when there is a
> discussion
> >>> going-on in PNTAW alias. So, I'm asking for the change.
> >>
> >>
> >> I would totally agree with that sentiment, although I don't see your
> > proposed text change reflecting it accurately. How about simply:
> >>
> >> "Note that TURN support being mandatory does not preclude a WebRTC
> > endpoint from supporting additional traversal mechanisms."
> >>
> >>
> >
> > +1 for the above text.
> >
> > CB
> >
> >> Simon
> >> --
> >> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
> >> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
> >> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> rtcweb mailing list
> >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 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]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------