Subject: [tram] TURN over websockets (recap)

From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 10:40:01 +0100

Hi guys,

Trying to move forward on this topic.

The concerns so far with this draft have been around if it provides 
better connectivity than TURN over TLS on port 443 and/or if ALPN could 
provide better support  in that case. On the other side, there has been 
other voices stating their willingless to use it, and even preferring it 
to the other counter parts (TURN over TCP/TLS) because they were easiest 
to implement on web environments.

In my opinion, having alternative options for TURN is a good thing, as 
provides more choices according to each one own scenarios, and even if 
it is proven that TURN over WS provides sames connectivity levels that 
TURN over TLS on port 443 that should not be a reason for blocking the 
draft. (Note that that  doesn't mean that it should be automatically 
endorsed by webrtc, in which this aspect should be taken into 
consideration).

What is the other people opinion? Is there any other kind of concern 
(security for example) regarding this draft that should be taken into 
consideration?

Best regards
Sergio

---

From: "Hutton, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 17:28:28 +0000

If people have a requirement for TURN over websockets then I can see no reason to prevent them creating a draft specifying how this works.

However I got the impression that those that stated they wanted this did so in the context of WebRTC and if that is their motivation then they will have to persuade the RTCWEB WG that it is needed.

Regards
Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tram [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Sergio Garcia
> Murillo
> Sent: 04 December 2014 09:40
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [tram] TURN over websockets (recap)
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:25:17 -0700

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Hutton, Andrew <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> If people have a requirement for TURN over websockets then I can see no
> reason to prevent them creating a draft specifying how this works.
>
> However I got the impression that those that stated they wanted this did
> so in the context of WebRTC and if that is their motivation then they will
> have to persuade the RTCWEB WG that it is needed.
>

Well, there are two distinct issues here:

1. Whether or not to specify TURN-over-WebSockets in a working group.
2. Whether or not to add TURN-over-WebSockets to the set of WebRTC
requirements.

1 is up to TRAM. 2 is up to RTCWEB.

I'll also add that 1 and 2 are orthogonal. So in the context of this
discussion, please focus on 1 and leave 2 to RTCWEB.

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:38:37 +0100

Completely agree, one battle at a time.. :)

On the mean time I will try to get more info about the scenarios we have 
outlined here.

Best regards
Sergio