IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pntaw] TURN over websockets

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Sat, 31 August 2013 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AAEC21E80CA for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 hpTFEDbZ0+lu for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC3B21E80CB for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id k13so2998657wgh.13 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/czyf+KVzmvKs/FpMBcwiA6FMU3h7wULOUfrYQGepK0=; b=VdMp4yasvL8TRZ50kss54zcGO3XDukMeZUaM3OUwxALsTRVPf3Lf5BUXuDafI3SzPj I5JAL102dRBIYUZEOCbgjKodf1IZXuqpgZa8te+FeTn6ViRat1f6NdFwWIjAU/dn/Ryh kvSmAGpCE0ZFwjaAcjY8M/O8j2Hg3uO56AcViR4RUvTgh8fEOKyB1cuD0f+Tv5RoSIRy NgOOC/vF8YDMIeZuzc8TSSS6UwpoK1MffKCioGHj3KJxxEVVtwT6fu+YUUzCjGDCHjKI ZT9mL4ccb6dNQqRowStJXw964nZxdnYMsXEzpuW7bu+vAWKu9kAUbBKo1CDiawnD47I9 dMtA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.123.227 with SMTP id md3mr15826325wjb.17.1377970426716; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.28.39 with HTTP; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <004e01cea666$98e9b090$cabd11b0$@co.in>
References: <52205AE1.9010807@gmail.com> <F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE12179BF94B@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <5220968E.2050708@gmail.com> <004e01cea666$98e9b090$cabd11b0$@co.in>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:33:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVt-VscwN4r_FovqCYqARxz2YmnBihwvzf6FXPcKcTz1Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: pntaw@ietf.org, Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>, "Stach, Thomas" <thomas.stach@siemens-enterprise.com>
Subject: Re: [pntaw] TURN over websockets
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: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 17:33:52 -0000

On 31 August 2013 09:24, Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> wrote:
> In case of (firewall) Policy vs protocol, the policy is the final decision
> maker and not the protocol. In case TURN over WebSocket is chosen, it is a
> matter of time for firewall policy enhancement to block these rat holes in
> the network.

I'm glad someone raised this point.  It's core to the discussion.
What, if any, visibility will a firewall or proxy be given into the
purpose of this exchange?   HTTP CONNECT followed by TLS doesn't give
the intermediary much of a chance to enforce policy.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email