RE: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt

El 27/06/2014 10:25, Hutton, Andrew escribió:
> I just submitted this draft for which there is a short agenda slot in Toronto httpbis wg meeting.
>
> The draft proposes adding an indication in to HTTP Connect as to what protocol is used with the tunnel and specifically for use with WebRTC (I.e. TURN/ICE-TCP) so should be of interest to this group.
>
> Discussion should be on the HTTPBIS list.
>
> Regards
> Andy
>
>
>          Title           : HTTP Connect - Tunnel Protocol For WebRTC
>          Authors         : Andrew Hutton
>                            Justin Uberti
>                            Martin Thomson
> 	Filename        : draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 7
> 	Date            : 2014-06-27
>
> Abstract:
>     This document describes a mechanism to enable HTTP Clients to provide
>     an indication within a HTTP Connect request as to which protocol will
>     be used within the tunnel established to the Server identified by the
>     target resource.  The tunneled protocol is declared using the Tunnel-
>     Protocol HTTP Request header field.  Label usage relating to the use
>     of HTTP Connect by WebRTC clients (e.g. turn, webrtc) are described
>     in this document.
>
Hi Andrew,

 From the draft:


      3.4
      <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00#section-3.4>.
      ICE-TCP / WebRTC as the Tunnel Protocol



    [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports] also requires that a WebRTC client
    support ICE-TCP [RFC6544  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6544>] as a mechanism to allow webrtc applications
    to communicate to peers with public IP addresses across UDP-blocking
    firewalls without using a TURN server.  In this case the client
    SHOULD include the "Tunnel-Protocol" header field with the value
    "webrtc" [I-D.thomson-rtcweb-alpn  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00#ref-I-D.thomson-rtcweb-alpn>] as shown in the example below.

             CONNECT 198.51.100.0:8999 HTTP/1.1
             Host: 198.51.100.0:8999
             Tunnel-Protocol: webrtc

If the protocol is ICE-TCP, why is it labeled as webrtc? Shouldn't it be better, and most consistent to use "ice" as value instead?
Also in turn you don't specify it it is TURN-TCP/TURN-TLS, shouldn't we also not specify it in here (although ICE TCP is the only viable use for tunneling ICE)? It would be then as this?


      3.4
      <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00#section-3.4>.
      ICE as the Tunnel Protocol



    [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports] also requires that a WebRTC client
    support ICE-TCP [RFC6544  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6544>] as a mechanism to allow webrtc applications
    to communicate to peers with public IP addresses across UDP-blocking
    firewalls without using a TURN server.  In this case the client
    SHOULD include the "Tunnel-Protocol" header field with the value
    "ice" [I-D.thomson-rtcweb-alpn  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00#ref-I-D.thomson-rtcweb-alpn>] as shown in the example below.

             CONNECT 198.51.100.0:8999 HTTP/1.1
             Host: 198.51.100.0:8999
             Tunnel-Protocol:ice

Also note that ICE tunneling may be used in non-webrtc apps.

Best regards
Sergio