Subject: [Masque] masque in the browser

From: John Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 06:04:12 -0500

https://github.com/w3c/webtransport/issues/270

In a nutshell.  Does it make sense for browsers to support masque.  And
then add the capability for browsers to push TURN traffic over masque
instead of TCP.  For webrtc today, my perception is the majority of traffic
gets pushed over TURN/TCP.  Which suffers from head of line blocking.  If
this could get pushed to TURN/masque, where masque is leveraging a udp
based protocol, like quic-http/3, does this remove the head of line
blocking problem?

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 11:25:52 -0700

Hi John,

Thanks for reaching out! Could you elaborate on what problem you're trying
to solve here?
AFAIK browsers don't currently let JavaScript perform TURN themselves,
unless it's part of WebRTC.
Is the problem that WebRTC call setup time is slow? Why is head-of-line
blocking bad for your use-case?

David

On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 4:04 AM John Davis <[email-masked]> wrote:

> --
> Masque mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/masque
>

---

From: John Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 13:49:19 -0500

Let me try and frame this w/ questions ...

Is it true the majority of webrtc traffic these days gets pushed thru
TURN/TCP?
Can we say underlying webrtc protocols are really designed for udp?  And
handle packet loss well?
What happens when a udp protocol, designed for packet loss, gets tunneled
thru tcp?  When tcp packet loss occurs, which is frequent these days,
doesn't it create a lesser experience?  When compared to the pure udp
experience?

If we could somehow push udp packets thru 443, from within the browser, and
make it look like tcp/443, wouldn't there be an opportunity to create a
much improved experience for everyone using webrtc?

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 12:06:37 -0700

> Is it true the majority of webrtc traffic these days gets pushed thru

I don't think that's true. Do you have data that suggests otherwise?

> If we could somehow push udp packets thru 443, from within the browser,
> and make it look like tcp/443, wouldn't there be an opportunity to create a

UDP will never look like TCP, there's nothing that QUIC, WebTransport, or
MASQUE can do to change that.

David

> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Thanks for reaching out! Could you elaborate on what problem you're
>> trying to solve here?