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

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com> Tue, 21 January 2014 11:01 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@unify.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 77F231A0050 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 03:01:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
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 muhpQeMfIWFJ for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 03:01:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx12.unify.com (mx12.unify.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF6FE1A009D for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 03:01:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by mx12.unify.com (Server) with ESMTP id 5685E23F03F9; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:01:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.183]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:01:15 +0100
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
To: Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [pntaw] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPFdOd2Vn6yFd4yUSx85JgARaXd5qNhEhAgAFYAwCAACZ6MA==
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:01:14 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17CBFD95@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17CBE35E@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CALDtMr+_jUti7BNVRubuncCU9rAZx4NqM3Ru1jtEbRF+uBMMEw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALDtMr+_jUti7BNVRubuncCU9rAZx4NqM3Ru1jtEbRF+uBMMEw@mail.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] 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 11:01:17 -0000

Hi Oleg,

I am thinking this maybe should be a comment against http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-01#section-2.2 but would be happy to add it to draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations if people think it is the right place.

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