Subject: Re: [tram] TURN over WebSocket

From: Justin Uberti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:05:47 -0800

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> 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.
>

I have a really hard time seeing how the WG could get behind this as long
as the problem to solve remains underspecified. A detailed description of
the problem to be solved, and an explanation of how the new work will solve
said problem, seem like clear prerequisites for any WG-sponsored effort.

---

From: Brandon Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 09:14:05 -0500

+1

On 01/07/2015 08:05 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Simon Perreault <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     (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.
>
>
> I have a really hard time seeing how the WG could get behind this as
> long as the problem to solve remains underspecified. A detailed
> description of the problem to be solved, and an explanation of how the
> new work will solve said problem, seem like clear prerequisites for any
> WG-sponsored effort.

-- 
Brandon Williams; Senior Principal Software Engineer
Emerging Products Engineering; Akamai Technologies Inc.

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 09:36:58 -0500

> said problem, seem like clear prerequisites for any WG-sponsored effort.

Yeah, it's called an "introduction section". It's not finished yet. So...
please send text. :)

To be perfectly clear, the introduction section not being perfect yet isn't
"a compelling argument against enabling that group of interested people to
work on ToWS within TRAM".

The TRAMsters who expressed a need for ToWS now need to work toward WG
consensus on the introduction section as a priority. A WG sends a draft to
IESG when it has reached WG consensus, not before.

Simon

---

From: Brandon Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 13:15:21 -0500

My experience in other working groups leads me to expect the proponents 
of a draft to make a compelling argument in favor of adding a WG 
milestone, rather than those with questions having to making a 
compelling argument against. For that reason, I was surprised to see the 
milestone created when it did not seem to me that there was WG consensus 
on the need for this effort.

I'm not suggesting that all working groups must function with the same 
criteria for adding a milestone. I prefer a model that requires WG 
consensus that this is a problem that needs to be solved, but I can also 
accept that there are other ways of viewing the process. I'm just 
calling out the difference in approach so that I can be sure I 
understand your intention and what the expected process for milestone 
adoption is within this WG.

On a separate note, I consider interoperability to be an important goal 
for the WG, and in my opinion adding new transport options works against 
that goal. For this reason, I would prefer to see a clear problem 
statement before adding a milestone for a new transport option so that 
we avoid unnecessary interoperability risks. I find this argument 
compelling, but also recognize that you and some others who have 
commented on the thread disagree. I'm mostly reiterating the argument 
because I don't think it was clearly represented in your earlier summary 
of the discussion.

--Brandon

On 01/08/2015 09:36 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 8:05 PM, Justin Uberti <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Simon Perreault
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>         that group of interested people to work on ToWS within TRAM, we
>         will propose a new milestone for this work, and
>     description of the problem to be solved, and an explanation of how
>     the new work will solve said problem, seem like clear prerequisites
>     for any WG-sponsored effort.
>
>
> Yeah, it's called an "introduction section". It's not finished yet.
> So... please send text. :)
>
> To be perfectly clear, the introduction section not being perfect yet
> isn't "a compelling argument against enabling that group of interested
> people to work on ToWS within TRAM".
>
> consensus on the introduction section as a priority. A WG sends a draft
> to IESG when it has reached WG consensus, not before.
>
> Simon

---

From: Justin Uberti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 11:03:30 -0800

> people to work on ToWS within TRAM".

I think this is being dismissive. It's not that the intro text isn't
perfect, it's that we still don't understand what the point of this work
is, which seems important in deciding whether the WG should spend WG time
on it.

Like Brandon says, I think we could have the draft move forward as an
individual draft while this stuff gets sorted out.

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 15:05:08 -0500

Justin, Brandon, TRAMsters,

I started writing a long response but erased all of it in favour of this
happy, shorter one:

Would anyone scream if the draft went through another revision focusing on
the problem statement before getting adopted? Work needs to be done on the
problem statement at one point or another, so it doesn't really change
anything from an end-goal perspective.

Hoping we can get back to technical arguments soon...
Simon

---

From: Justin Uberti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 12:25:06 -0800

Sounds good to me.

---

From: Brandon Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 09:36:49 -0500

Sounds good.

On 01/08/2015 03:05 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
> Would anyone scream if the draft went through another revision focusing
> on the problem statement before getting adopted? Work needs to be done
> on the problem statement at one point or another, so it doesn't really
> change anything from an end-goal perspective.
>

---

From: "Hutton, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:18:22 +0000

Also sounds good to me and I am in agreement with Brendon and Justin that the problem statement needs to be clearer.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tram [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Brandon Williams
> Sent: 09 January 2015 14:37
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [tram] TURN over WebSocket
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram