Re: [pntaw] New version of draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

Thanks.  The new version is quite a bit more clear.   A question about
Section 2.3: 

      Open issue: Although
      [draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements] considers only a
      restriction to HTTP(S) similar consideration apply to other ports as
well.
      or port ranges.  A change to req F37 to "The browser must be able
      to send streams and data to a peer in the presence of FWs that
      only allows traffic via a HTTP Proxy." has been agreed and will be
      in the next update does this solve the issue.

[BA] I found the above somewhat hard to parse.  Is this referring to an
issue with this document, or with the use-case document? 

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Hutton, Andrew
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:07 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [pntaw] New version of
draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations

Hi All,

We have submitted draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-02 in
which we have tried to take account of the feedback we have received over
the last couple of months.

Please review and send comments to this list I really hope we can make some
progress towards adopting this now.

Regards
Andy



-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: 20 September 2013 15:33
To: [e-mail]
Subject: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-02.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.


	Title           : RTCWEB Considerations for NATs, Firewalls and HTTP
proxies
	Author(s)       : Thomas Stach
                          Andrew Hutton
                          Justin Uberti
	Filename        :
draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-02.txt
	Pages           : 12
	Date            : 2013-09-20

Abstract:
   This document describes mechanism to enable media stream
   establishment for Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers (WebRTC) in
   the presence of network address translators, firewalls and HTTP
   proxies.  HTTP proxy and firewall deployed in many private network
   domains introduce obstacles to the successful establishment of media
   stream via WebRTC.  This document examines some of these deployment
   scenarios and develops requirements on the web browsers designed to
   provide the best possible chance of media connectivity between WebRTC
   peers.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerat
ions

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-0
2

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerat
ions-02


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
_______________________________________________
pntaw mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw