Re: [pntaw] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-03.txt

Harald, if you think that your "transports" draft is the right place to
include the 300 response requirement, and you do not mind including it,
then I am fine with that.

Thanks
Oleg

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote:

> On 01/21/2014 12:01 PM, Hutton, Andrew wrote:
>
>> Hi Oleg,
>>
>> I am thinking this maybe should be a comment against
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01#section-2.2but would be happy to add it to draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations
>> if people think it is the right place.
>>
>
> It's not specifically a firewall issue (it applies every time you have a
> NAT), so I think -transport- is the right place for it (and discussion
> should be on the RTCWEB list).
>
>
>
>
>> Regards
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Oleg Moskalenko [mailto:mom040267@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 21 January 2014 09:37
>>> To: Hutton, Andrew
>>> Cc: pntaw@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [pntaw] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-
>>> considerations-03.txt
>>>
>>> I have a comment on section 5 of the document.
>>>
>>> One thing that I'd definitely like to see enforced in the browser's
>>> implementation of the TURN client protocol is the support of 300
>>> Alternate Server error message. This is becoming an issue because of
>>> the possible volume of the WebRTC media traffic. If the browsers are
>>> supporting the error 300, then a TURN server administrator can
>>> relatively easy set a load balancing scheme. If the browsers do not
>>> support it, then it becomes a more complicated issue and an
>>> implementation-dependent procedure.
>>> As far as I know, no current browser supports 300 response from TURN
>>> server. It would be very nice if the TURN server administrator could
>>> rely on that feature.
>>>
>>> Oleg
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Hutton, Andrew
>>> <andrew.hutton@unify.com> wrote:
>>> I updated draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-consideration.
>>>
>>> The main change is that the draft now explores the different options
>>> that are available for handling such things as HTTP Proxies in a WebRTC
>>> environment and no longer recommends a specific solution.
>>>
>>> Would be good to restart the discussion on these options and
>>> determining the best way forward to ensuring we get some defined
>>> standardized behavior for WebRTC for these scenarios.
>>>
>>> So please go ahead and make comments.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>>> internet-drafts@ietf.org
>>> Sent: 20 January 2014 11:35
>>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-
>>> 03.txt
>>>
>>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>> directories.
>>>
>>>
>>>          Title           : RTCWEB Considerations for NATs, Firewalls and
>>> HTTP proxies
>>>          Authors         : Thomas Stach
>>>                            Andrew Hutton
>>>                            Justin Uberti
>>>          Filename        : draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-
>>> considerations-03.txt
>>>          Pages           : 14
>>>          Date            : 2014-01-20
>>>
>>> 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 specifies requirements on WebRTC enabled 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-
>>> considerations/
>>>
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-
>>> considerations-03
>>>
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-
>>> considerations-03
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pntaw mailing list
>> pntaw@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pntaw mailing list
> pntaw@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
>