[pntaw] draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Fri, 30 August 2013 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
X-Original-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7C4211E810A for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.414
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x-xDQlvUQY4b for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A55111E8108 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown []) by senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 7860823F04CE for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:16:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:16:16 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: "pntaw@ietf.org" <pntaw@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations
Thread-Index: Ac6li3yHiavbr66zRBS13ndrj3kqWQ==
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:16:15 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BA590C@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BA590CMCHP04MSXglobal_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [pntaw] draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations
X-BeenThere: pntaw@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for practices related to proxies, NATs, TURN, and WebRTC" <pntaw.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pntaw>, <mailto:pntaw-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pntaw>
List-Post: <mailto:pntaw@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pntaw-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw>, <mailto:pntaw-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:16:30 -0000

One of the reasons for establishing the pntaw mailing list was to discuss http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-01

This draft discusses the interaction between webrtc browsers and Web Proxies, Firewalls and TURN servers and makes some proposals on what needs to be implemented in webrtc browsers.  We have already received a few comments both on the rtcweb list and off list so we are working on an update which we hope to submit within the next couple of weeks.

As some people have recently stated on the rtcweb list this is an important aspect of webrtc that needs to be tackled to enable webrtc deployments in many restricted environments.

The draft discusses the use of HTTP CONNECT in environments with web proxies to enable a tunnel to be established to the TURN server but this does not require any TURN enhancements which some people seem to have thought to be the case.  A small number of people have told me that this might be controversial but the way I see it is that webrtc brings new types of media to web applications we need to specify the interaction between webrtc browsers and proxies in the same was as is done for HTTP (See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-23#section-4.3.6).

Look forward to your comments.