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

Thanks for the feedback.

I think the question that needs to be answered is what does the proxy really need to know if it is going to make some policy decision based on what is in this header.

It me be that the fact that the application is using TURN or ICE-TCP to connect to a WebRTC peer is irrelevant to the proxy and that what is really relevant is that "WebRTC" is the application. This tells the proxy something about what it can expect within the tunnel (I.e. real-time media).

I that case I would probably support a single token for "webrtc".

For some non WebRTC applications it maybe that "turn" is a generic label that is useful to indicate to the proxy that what to expect within the tunnel but maybe that should not be within the scope of this draft.

I would be ok with "Tunneled-Application" if the consensus is that that is better.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Thomson []
> Sent: 30 June 2014 17:19
> To: Sergio Garcia Murillo
> Cc: HTTP Working Group
> Subject: Re: draft-hutton-httpbis-connect-protocol-00.txt
> On 30 June 2014 02:29, Sergio Garcia Murillo
> <> wrote:
> > 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
> > Tunneled-Application-Protocol?
> It's still a protocol.  But I have no objection to the former, some
> small objection to the latter, but only with respect to verbosity.

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 14:33:37 UTC