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

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Mon, 23 September 2013 11:33 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 9B2AD21F9FC7 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.489
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.046, 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 Fr4qPAEKjlnS for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA01C11E8178 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 31AAF1EB84BD; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:33:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.31]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:33:34 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [pntaw] New version of draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations
Thread-Index: AQHOuFC8/sa1tUCti0+r9warCZch3g==
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:33:33 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BD0F7B@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCF3A5@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>, <523CCD06.3030902@gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BD0178@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <524002E8.8080506@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <524002E8.8080506@gmail.com>
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="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "pntaw@ietf.org" <pntaw@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:33:59 -0000

Below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergio Garcia Murillo [mailto:sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com]
> Sent: 23 September 2013 09:59
> To: Hutton, Andrew
> Cc: pntaw@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pntaw] New version of draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-
> considerations
> 
> El 22/09/2013 0:40, Hutton, Andrew escribió:
> 
> We don't believe that discussing issues around DPI inspection is within
> scope or desirable and we are not trying to work around it.
> 
> Why?
> 

We don't have any use cases relating to this and I think it is a subject we are unlikely to agree on or standardize in the IETF.


> 
>  However all scenarios that involve accessing WebRTC services from
> behind a firewall are within scope whether it is a service deployed by
> an enterprise or not.
> 
> Regarding requirement F37 I already raised an issue with this some time
> ago and a change will be made in the next update to the use case draft.
> The issue is that this should not refer to a firewall "that only allows
> HTTP(S) traffic" but should include the case of HTTP Proxy being
> deployed and the fw allowing traffic from the proxy even if it is not
> HTTP(S). Once this change gets in to the use case draft I think we are
> aligned with it.
> 
> Why are you changing the requirement and cutting the scope so it
> matches your proposed solution? Shouldn't it be the other way round?
>

Because I think the requirement is wrong and too specific so I see the change as widening the scope. The current text also implies a RTP over HTTP solution which has already been discussed and did not get support.


> 
> Best regards
> Sergio