IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Mon, 23 September 2013 11:51 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@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 215C721F8B07 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.011, 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 DJDx-wsTlb6G for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:51:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A68621F9D31 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hj3so2162089wib.7 for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=paNCzXsPomPL/ANdGF9jT89ME46uGch1QAUIwxHZ/NE=; b=iKIglLYxysD9TcH9/c+l8jcftUtc8gQUI5DGYdQQvDRPpXAi/5L4HA751TtdKj4ILF bvmMG7+onwW0ulGdFYodsOLQZ6w7Hhqv6Ho+leuhorDxb+7D3Tf4Wn+3W+hP8CXSMZmA hA2I38VmtAmWLu455G904z0EE7gJjENBzlY2cVxVwGw7EqwLpJSfEA+lYvfiHlMZo2lQ /qCN/uemMu1DqU2KS9JQXsdvwhRteQtZNsKEk4MO5OtZJvR4ZPbxyULNoJBzLd1hgt3p aFLAgyIv+G69ae/BtWhGxYu2Q3qt8mx0Y5Ewus6tBJmD14MiWIFuz01yD4tI3NHqtAfs jrvg==
X-Received: by 10.180.73.65 with SMTP id j1mr13310984wiv.10.1379936944028; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.45] (54.Red-83-61-124.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [83.61.124.54]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e1sm24721434wij.6.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <52402AAE.5080908@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:49:02 +0200
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCF3A5@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>, <523CCD06.3030902@gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BD0178@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <524002E8.8080506@gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BD0F7B@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BD0F7B@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 11:51:32 -0000

El 23/09/2013 13:33, Hutton, Andrew escribió:
> Below.
>
>> 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.
>

I believe it would be better not to remove it from the problem 
statement, keep it as a valid scenario and consider it when evaluating 
the possible solutions.
I am not saying that the final agreed solution should work with DPI 
(although I really  would prefer it does), but at least we should be 
able to get a complete picture on which scenarios are meant to work with 
WebRTC and which ones are not.

Best regards
Sergio

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email