I'm very hesitant to add more requirements that translate to "new 
protocol needs to be developed, implemented and deployed across the 
network before the requirement is useful".

In this case, it's "only" a DHCP option, but what new DHCP options do we 
have that have become widely used in the last 10 years?

On 09/20/2013 05:43 PM, Karl Stahl wrote:
> For NAT/Firewall traversal WebRTC uses ICE, where the browser today gets the
> TURN server address from the web application, or gets it configured by a LAN
> admin via an “admin policy template”.
>
> However, there is a need (motivations below) for the TURN server address to
> be provided via DHCP (and maybe RA - Router Advertisement - for IPv6, and
> the OTT channel in mobiles have their own method I’ve been told). Simply
> put, just as you often get your IP-address, DNS address, etc. automatically
> from the network access, you should also get the TURN server address.
>
> I suggest the following is added to the end of use case (which today is
> about multiple TURN servers)
> 3.2.4.  Simple Video Communication Service, global service provider
> 3.2.4.1.  Description
> ...
> "A network service provider must be able to automatically supply a TURN
> server addresses to the browser when accessing a network. The address may
> come via DHCP or a similar mechanism (maybe RA - Router Advertisement - for
> IPv6, an addition to the IPCP protocol like RFC1877 for PPPoE, or whatever
> method the mobile OTT channels use). The mechanism should be similar to
> automatically getting the IP-address, DNS address, etc.. and need extensions
> to current recommendations/standards.
>
> There are several reasons for a network service provider to supply a TURN
> server as part of his offered access:
> - to keep media paths short, specifically not sending media outside its own
> network to some distant application provided TURN server
> - to support mobility, i.e. you may want to move from a LAN with a
> configured TURN server to accessing via WiFi or 3G/4G OTT channels
> - to offer a media path with better quality (than best effort data traffic).
> Getting “WebRTC-ready” access and we look forward to telepresence for
> everyone.
>
> An enterprise network that want to keep a restrictive firewall not allowing
> UDP traffic, could provide a real-time path using a TURN server paralleling
> the firewall, instead of tunneling RTP through always open http or https
> ports resulting in RTP media over TCP – with severe quality problems from
> TCP retransmissions of dropped packets. The TURN server address is most
> easily provided in the same way as the IP address and DNS address. (That
> would also put the right party in control – The network provider decides
> what is allowed on his network.)
>
> This browser should select which available TURN server address to use in the
> following priority order, where ICE could be used to try several:
>
> 1) TURN server address configured in the browser by the user (special cases,
> normally not used)
> 2) TURN server address configured by the network administrator via an “admin
> policy template”
> 3) TURN server address supplied by DHCP or similar automatic network method
> 4) TURN server address being supplied by the web application"
>
> Two new requirements can be extracted:
> "   ----------------------------------------------------------------
>     F40     The browser must support retrieving TURN server addresses via
> DHCP or a similar mechanism (maybe RA - Router Advertisement - for IPv6, an
> addition to the IPCP protocol like RFC1877 for PPPoE, or whatever method the
> mobile OTT channels use). The mechanism should be similar to automatically
> getting the IP-address, DNS address, etc..
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------
>     F42     This browser should select which available TURN server address to
> use in the following priority order, where ICE could be used to try several:
>
> 1) TURN server address configured in the browser by the user (special cases,
> normally not used)
> 2) TURN server address configured by the network administrator via an “admin
> policy template”
> 3) TURN server address supplied by DHCP or similar automatic network method
> 4) TURN server address being supplied by the web application
> ----------------------------------------------------------------"
>
> I suppose this also will add to:
> 5.  IANA Considerations
>     TBD
>
> /Karl
>
>
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] För Cullen
> Jennings (fluffy)
> Skickat: den 4 september 2013 18:24
> Till: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Ämne: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11
>
>
> We would like to start a working group last call of
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11.
>
> Please send comments by the end of the day on September 21.
>
> Thank you,
>
> The chairs ….
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb