W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

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

From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 23:29:34 +0200
Message-ID: <53ADE23E.60702@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
El 27/06/2014 18:35, Martin Thomson escribió:
> On 27 June 2014 02:50, Sergio Garcia Murillo
> <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
> I think that's a point of confusion.  The intent is to do webrtc, or
> something that is compatible with webrtc.  ICE, and ICE-TCP, are just
> a small part of what is being done here.  ICE isn't inherently useful,
> after all.
Well, the fact is that you are tunneling an ICE-TCP connection over an 
HTTP CONNECT, so calling it "webrtc" sub protocol is quite misleading. 
Mainly because there is not such a thing as a webrtc protocol per se, 
and ICE-TCP may be used by non-webrtc applications.

Also, I think it is not coherent because you are calling "turn" 
subprotocol to TURN tunneled over an HTTP CONNECT. So, following your 
reasoning, you should call it "webrtc" , given that TURN isn't 
inherently useful, after all.

Best regards
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 21:30:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC