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: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:29:33 +0200
Message-ID: <53B12DFD.4070109@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
El 28/06/2014 0:05, Martin Thomson escribió:
> 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.

In case of using just one token (i.e. "webrtc"), then I think what is 
misleading for me is the header name. IMHO if we are talking about 
protocols, they are ice and turn, if we are talking about webrtc, then 
it is something different. How about Tunneled-Application or 

Best regards
Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 09:29:57 UTC

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