- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 15:05:16 -0700
- 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