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

Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com> Tue, 21 January 2014 09:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mom040267@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F33531A00AA for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:37:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cCd-qwJApdr9 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x233.google.com (mail-pb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B11611A00A9 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id un15so4493310pbc.10 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:37:10 -0800 (PST)
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=SMbP+pmEiBjW8CC9bt3lnKc+7wM+YMAjDokTQTpzNNw=; b=FsUxIa/07T2qLYH3HA6zm7brKqTV6hlLAp5iJ/n7/anl8HET2tyMbH46BT0Rd9cqQd Fb88fx8IV9Lmlut7JNcZEmbIFcDn4pnaspP0vtJQI2zc23V3ZxR6f0Eca/40s6nXiy1+ sMtBveGcvSiX3t10fq3FbUsOe2mM/MebUxdsfwQhHKRR4MqTvfIamlm2nu/s+u0U2Dt9 aZ/iaJ/AeYOAsnmM1964NJRqzwaxmPklmKFD8A70tzZxwcxNV+LbG/z4i4COR3wx5NlM iTVNki0T7zhP71WWXAprNZCBNDnnDjGO2srpCK+R/mWCKdwanfjuhi9EYXpbYT+XeNAn mPhQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.228.37 with SMTP id sf5mr23718605pac.19.1390297030731; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:37:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.147.131 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:37:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17CBE35E@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17CBE35E@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 01:37:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CALDtMr+_jUti7BNVRubuncCU9rAZx4NqM3Ru1jtEbRF+uBMMEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b111dd9a62f3304f077c083
Cc: "pntaw@ietf.org" <pntaw@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pntaw] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-03.txt
X-BeenThere: pntaw@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:37:13 -0000

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
>