- From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 23:29:34 +0200
- 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 Sergio
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 21:30:00 UTC