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

Simon Pietro Romano <spromano@unina.it> Mon, 20 May 2013 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <spromano@unina.it>
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 1EF2921F96CA; Mon, 20 May 2013 10:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.718
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.718 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 fHKq8d3CV6TI; Mon, 20 May 2013 10:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.unina.it (smtp1.unina.it [192.132.34.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC28821F96B9; Mon, 20 May 2013 10:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [143.225.162.130] ([143.225.162.130]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp1.unina.it (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4KHBWVP023559 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 20 May 2013 19:11:32 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_57A43A19-E216-43EE-9809-02D4AC87A6B4"
From: Simon Pietro Romano <spromano@unina.it>
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1159CF9B@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 19:11:31 +0200
Message-Id: <3094D7F4-1DBE-4557-8815-3067AE07E219@unina.it>
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>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:10:43 -0700
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gustavo_Garc=EDa?= <ggb@tokbox.com>
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [rtcweb] 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: Mon, 20 May 2013 17:11:42 -0000

I keep on thinking that the solution depicted in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-miniero-rtcweb-http-fallback-00.txt deserves attention.

Simon

Il giorno 20/mag/2013, alle ore 13:06, Hutton, Andrew ha scritto:

> Regarding the HTTP fallback and whether this could be adapted to be a TURN over HTTP based solution then I think the same comments that were made on the TURN over websockets apply. What are the benefits of creating a new transport for TURN over what we can do using HTTP Connect as described in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00.
> 
> Having said that I am really happy we are having this debate as we really need to find a solution here that the browser vendors will implement so I would really like to know which options they prefer.
> 
> I really hope we can get draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations adopted and use it to document whatever the working group agrees on being the right solution.
> 
> Regards
> Andy
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Lorenzo Miniero [mailto:lorenzo@meetecho.com]
>> Sent: 20 May 2013 10:15
>> To: Gustavo García
>> Cc: Hutton, Andrew; rtcweb@ietf.org; behave@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] New Version Notification for draft-chenxin-
>> behave-turn-websocket-00.txt
>> 
>> Il giorno Sun, 19 May 2013 23:20:41 -0700
>> Gustavo García <ggb@tokbox.com> ha scritto:
>> 
>>> I agree that TURN over websockets doesn't solve much more scenarios
>>> than TURN/TLS.   If trying to fix HTTP Proxy traversal why not doing
>>> it over HTTP that aside of philosophical discussions would be the
>>> solution with better success rate?  Otherwise we will have to
>>> continue answering for another 10 years "why is this app not working
>>> if skype does".
>>> 
>>> Something like this draft sent some months ago but perhaps for TURN
>>> instead of direct connections:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-miniero-rtcweb-http-fallback-00.txt
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> When I submitted that draft this summer, I had that exact purpose in
>> mind, that is taking care of corner edge cases like restrictive proxies
>> and the like. Of course it was not meant to be a solution, just a way
>> to foster discussion in that direction. In that discussion I also
>> mentioned some work we did about this in the past, which in part
>> apparently ended up in draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations:
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg05041.html
>> 
>> At the time most people in the ML thought it was either too useless,
>> too complex or even harmful, considering it could be considered as a
>> "sneaky" way to circumvent rules added by a network administrator, and
>> so unacceptable. Anyway, as I said back then, a solution like this
>> doesn't have to be sneaky, and it could very well be conceived in order
>> to be admin-friendly rather than have a parrot and a wooden leg.
>> 
>> Whether we actually need something like this or TURN-over-443 is enough
>> I don't know: I still think it may be useful to tackle scenarios where
>> everything else fails (the "skype works here" effect), so I'd be glad
>> to be of help in that direction if needed.
>> 
>> Lorenzo
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 16/05/2013, at 01:28, Hutton, Andrew wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I agree with Bernard's comments regarding the impact of DPI but of
>>>> course such DPI devices do what they do and we can't and even don't
>>>> want to stop them from doing it. However for the case when policy
>>>> is such that the firewall will only allow traffic to traverse that
>>>> comes from the HTTP Proxy or a network specific TURN server and
>>>> there is no deliberate policy to block WebRTC media we need a
>>>> solution and this is what
>>>> draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00 addresses.
>>>> 
>>>> So far I don't see the benefit that TURN over websockets would have
>>>> in this scenario and it needs additional implementation in the
>>>> browser and the TURN server.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> Andy
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: 15 May 2013 18:20
>>>>> To: Hutton, Andrew; Chenxin (Xin); behave@ietf.org;
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] FW: New Version Notification for
>>>>> draft-chenxin- behave-turn-websocket-00.txt
>>>>> 
>>>>> Andrew Hutton said:
>>>>>> When we wrote the draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-
>>>>> rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-00 we did not include this
>>>>> option because we did not see the benefit of additional transport
>>>>> options for TURN given that the existing options (E.g. TURN/TCP
>>>>> and TURN/TLS) seem to be meet our needs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So what would be the benefits that justify this addition
>> transport
>>>>> option for TURN?
>>>>> 
>>>>> [BA] In my experience,  institutions with very restrictive
>> security
>>>>> policies (e.g. those that don't allow UDP in or out) also tend to
>>>>> deploy other measures such as deep packet inspection.   So just
>>>>> because some traffic is allowed in or out on port 80 does not mean
>>>>> that TURN/TCP will be allowed on that port - a DPI box may examine
>>>>> the traffic and complain if it doesn't see HTTP being used.  On
>>>>> the other hand, unless the DPI box is upgraded, it will also
>>>>> complain about websockets.  So I think draft-chenxin only helps in
>>>>> a situation where TURN over Websockets would be allowed when
>>>>> TURN/TCP would not be.  That scenario is rare, at least at the
>>>>> moment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The argument for TURN over Websocket/TLS is even more difficult to
>>>>> make. While DPI boxes may examine traffic destined to port 443
>>>>> carefully to make sure that TLS is really being used,  assuming
>>>>> that the DPI box does not see anything it considers fishy, the TLS
>>>>> exchange will complete and the DPI box will lose visibility.
>>>>> After TLS is running, the DPI box does not have much information
>>>>> available to distinguish TURN/TLS from HTTP over TLS, with or
>>>>> without websockets -- and those things it does have (such as
>>>>> packet size) are as likely to result in an objection to websocket
>>>>> transport as TURN/TLS.  So I'm not sure that draft-chenxin will
>>>>> help in that situation either.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

                     					       _\\|//_
                           				      ( O-O )
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    				Simon Pietro Romano
             				 Universita' di Napoli Federico II
                		     Computer Engineering Department 
	             Phone: +39 081 7683823 -- Fax: +39 081 7683816
                                           e-mail: spromano@unina.it

		    <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento Ë l'alibi degli 
		    idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte.
               			                     oooO
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(   )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
					                 \ (            (   )
			                                  \_)          ) /
                                                                       (_/