Subject: Re: [tram] TURN over WebSocket

From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 02:00:24 +0000

If there is a problem with TURN then I guess it could also be a problem with DNS (DNS-over-TLS-over-TCP to solve privacy problem) or some other protocol. We may want to discuss how this problem impacts any protocol that plans to use TLS on port 443, why this problem cannot be addressed by existing mechanisms and should other protocols also use Websockets.

-Tiru

From: tram [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 12:42 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [tram] TURN over WebSocket

Ok here's our recap of the discussion, as chairs:

- Nobody disagrees about the technical merit of TURN over WebSockets (ToWS). That is, nobody said it won't work, it will break stuff, or won't actually solve the problem.

- There is disagreement about what the problem actually is, and whether we really do need ToWS in the context of WebRTC.

- Nevertheless, there is an important number of TRAMsters that appear to be interested in working on ToWS.

So, unless somebody makes a compelling argument against enabling that group of interested people to work on ToWS within TRAM, we will propose a new milestone for this work, and adopt draft-chenxin-behave-turn-websocket as WG document.

Simon & Gonzalo

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Victor Pascual Avila <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi,

last year we put together this I-D:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chenxin-behave-turn-websocket-01

We have recently received some emails indicating there's interest in
reviving this work.

Use case: only traffic on ports 80 and 443 are allowed and the
need/requirement to run both HTTPS and TURN servers on port 443, on
the same IP address.

Shall we create a new milestone for this?

Cheers,
-Victor

_______________________________________________
tram mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram