Subject: [tram] support for adoption of peer-redirect?

From: Brandon Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 14:21:14 -0400

Hi all,

We ran out of time at the Dallas meeting for me to present my updates to 
the peer-redirect draft. Back in Toronto, we weren't adding milestones 
because we hadn't made progress on stunbis and turnbis yet, so I didn't 
have a chance to ask about adoption there either. So ...

I would like to ask for WG adoption of this draft. Do you support 
adoption? If not, are there updates that could be made that would allow 
you to support adoption?

The authors will very much appreciate WG feedback on this effort.

Thanks,
--Brandon

PS: Here is the presentation that I intended to give in Dallas.

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-tram-1.pdf

It summarizes the changes since version 01 which was presented in Toronto.

Here is a link to the full draft.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-williams-peer-redirect

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

---

From: Justin Uberti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 13:14:48 -0700

There is a lot of promise here, but I think the end-to-end interaction
needs to be explained more. For instance, ICE gathering will likely have
completed by the time the peer goes to create permissions, so when the peer
is informed then that another TURN server might be a good idea, it's not
clear how that information will be used. In addition, given the potentially
complex topologies involved, you could imagine that the new TURN server
could actually be worse than the current one (especially if both ends
decide to switch around the same time), and that situation needs to be
addressed.

This makes me think that some more complete examples are needed to walk
through these cases. As a result of these examples, we might also decide
that the basic mechanism doesn't need to be as complex (i.e. may not need
to handle both success and error responses).

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Brandon Williams <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> adoption? If not, are there updates that could be made that would allow you
> to support adoption?
>
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>

---

From: Brandon Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:28:57 -0400

Tiru reminded me that I had forgotten to respond to Justin's comment on 
the list.

I agree with Justin's point here. The draft should probably have some 
content providing a bit of detail about how use of this mechanism fits 
into ICE. Such discussion might also lead to some simplification of the 
method. I plan to update the draft based on his comments prior to Prague 
and will test the waters again at that point.

--Brandon

On 04/02/2015 04:14 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> completed by the time the peer goes to create permissions, so when the
> peer is informed then that another TURN server might be a good idea,
> it's not clear how that information will be used. In addition, given the
> potentially complex topologies involved, you could imagine that the new
> TURN server could actually be worse than the current one (especially if
> both ends decide to switch around the same time), and that situation
> needs to be addressed.
>
> that the basic mechanism doesn't need to be as complex (i.e. may not
> need to handle both success and error responses).
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Brandon Williams
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     We ran out of time at the Dallas meeting for me to present my
>     updates to the peer-redirect draft. Back in Toronto, we weren't
>     adding milestones because we hadn't made progress on stunbis and
>     turnbis yet, so I didn't have a chance to ask about adoption there
>     either. So ...
>
>     adoption? If not, are there updates that could be made that would
>     allow you to support adoption?
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     tram mailing list
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

-- 
Brandon Williams; Chief Architect
Cloud Networking; Akamai Technologies Inc.