Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 13 November 2013 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EEFE11E810D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:19:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hbrN8C3S1-vD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77DDD11E8107 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E527039E1AC; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:19:13 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VW1BxZG0DXUh; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:19:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [172.30.42.84] (unknown [62.109.39.85]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D530839E176; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:19:12 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <5283D0AF.70305@alvestrand.no>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:19:11 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, "Ravindran, Parthasarathi (NSN - IN/Bangalore)" <parthasarathi.ravindran@nsn.com>, ext Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <5282391D.3050002@ericsson.com> <40AFDF4AF1909E4CB42B6D91CE6C419D19C63196@SGSIMBX006.nsn-intra.net> <5283291E.7090108@ericsson.com> <40AFDF4AF1909E4CB42B6D91CE6C419D19C71D01@SGSIMBX006.nsn-intra.net> <5283B92B.4080304@viagenie.ca> <5283C8A5.8030601@alvestrand.no> <5283CBA2.3060604@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <5283CBA2.3060604@viagenie.ca>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 19:19:21 -0000

On 11/13/2013 07:57 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
> Le 2013-11-13 13:44, Harald Alvestrand a écrit :
>>> All this relies on the possibility that a TCP peer-to-peer connection
>>> could be successfully established where a UDP one couldn't. IMHO this
>>> is very unlikely to happen in practice. So unlikely in fact that any
>>> possible gain over just falling back on a TURN relay wouldn't be worth
>>> the additional implementation cost.
>>
>> Simon, do you have any numbers on that - how many calls will be going to
>> servers on the Internet versus how many calls will be going
>> peer-to-peer?
>
> Not sure what you mean.
>
>> The argument being given only applies to the client-to-gateway usecase
>
> My point only applied to peer-to-peer connections, not peer-to-server.
> If we're discussing peer-to-server, then I wonder why we're discussing
> that at all.

Because we agreed to include server-based systems in section 3.4 of the
use cases and requirements" document?

I think we have WG consensus that client-to-server based use cases,
while less important than browser-to-browser use cases, are still important.

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.