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

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Fri, 20 September 2013 18:12 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DB021F9D1F for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156]
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 mHqXbUcOOic0 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 647C421F9CF7 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 9EF4B23F04B0; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 20:12:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.31]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 20:11:54 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, "pntaw@ietf.org" <pntaw@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pntaw] New version of draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations
Thread-Index: AQHOtii/ujxH0G2c8E6z81k4wV5yyJnO65+Q
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:11:53 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCF5E1@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCF3A5@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <BLU405-EAS33058EE9080AE279C6FD50D93220@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU405-EAS33058EE9080AE279C6FD50D93220@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [pntaw] New version of 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, 20 Sep 2013 18:12:13 -0000

Hi Bernard,

I agree this is confusing I think it is meant to refer to the use-case document in which the requirement F37 needs to be changed to cater for the case when a HTTP Proxy is deployed and the firewall allows traffic from the proxy. I believe we have already agreed that change to the use-case draft.

Regards
Andy 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
> Sent: 20 September 2013 18:42
> To: Hutton, Andrew; pntaw@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [pntaw] New version of draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-
> considerations
> 
> 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: pntaw-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pntaw-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
> Hutton, Andrew
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:07 AM
> To: pntaw@ietf.org
> 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: i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-
> bounces@ietf.org]
> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: 20 September 2013 15:33
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> 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
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> 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
> pntaw@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw