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

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

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:05:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWkt5E3q3VncFcv9rgquYy7uraOhoH+aXmyktF2JM3jtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 27 June 2014 14:29, Sergio Garcia Murillo
<sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mainly because there is not such a thing as a webrtc protocol per se, and
> ICE-TCP may be used by non-webrtc applications.

This is covered in the draft that is referenced.  "webrtc" is just a
token that means: ICE *AND* DTLS + SCTP + Data Channel Protocol
multiplexed with SRTP (see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports, which defines
the protocol set; and
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-rtcweb-alpn, which defines
the token).

> 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.

Yes, I think that I would prefer this.  I think that I did raise that
point, or should have.  I didn't really get the time to follow up, so
thanks for highlighting this.
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 22:05:43 UTC

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