IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] [rtcweb] Why? Quality! New Version Notification for draft-chenxin-behave-turn-websocket-00.txt

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Wed, 22 May 2013 08:00 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E479921F92FB; Wed, 22 May 2013 01:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.695, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, PLING_QUERY=1.39]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bc4+dS2r9iUH; Wed, 22 May 2013 01:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8598C21F92F5; Wed, 22 May 2013 01:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:660:3001:4012:f83b:cff2:9a05:711]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B531240409; Wed, 22 May 2013 04:00:10 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <519C7B17.8070405@viagenie.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 10:00:23 +0200
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: behave@ietf.org, rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <9E34D50A21D1D1489134B4D770CE03974C6DC83A@szxeml538-mbs.china.huawei.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF11599668@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <BLU169-W4995BC8B88C6AD60F4CA5093A20@phx.gbl> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1159A209@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <6F6B2040-A8C7-4B37-928E-5072F06E9894@tokbox.com> <20130520111522.1b7e2eb1@meetecho.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1159CF9B@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <3094D7F4-1DBE-4557-8815-3067AE07E219@unina.it> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1159E317@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <000001ce5677$4b471650$e1d542f0$@stahl@intertex.se>
In-Reply-To: <000001ce5677$4b471650$e1d542f0$@stahl@intertex.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [rtcweb] Why? Quality! New Version Notification for draft-chenxin-behave-turn-websocket-00.txt
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 08:00:12 -0000

Le 2013-05-22 01:02, Karl Stahl a écrit :
> Doesn’t the network administrator that configured the firewall have
> a legitimate right to decide what traffic should be on his network?

IMHO this is the strongest argument.

STUN/TURN/ICE have always been about NAT traversal. Firewall traversal
is a completely different beast. It implies a kind of battle between the
client and the firewall, where the client implementer is trying to be
smarter than the firewall administrator. This is a battle the IETF
should not engage in. Let the vendors play that game.

Simon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email