IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Mon, 23 September 2013 11:22 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 69FA821F9B65 for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.492
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.049, 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 S6X+9iQWS29f for <pntaw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:22:08 -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 4ACD521F90CC for <pntaw@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 609441EB84C2; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:22:03 +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 13:21:46 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: "Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com" <Markus.Isomaki@nokia.com>, "melinda.shore@gmail.com" <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, "mom040267@gmail.com" <mom040267@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [pntaw] New version of draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations
Thread-Index: AQHOuECJ/InYO2ngDEOY4PPUZ4jErJnTLHwQ
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:21:45 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BD0F31@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCF3A5@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <523CCD06.3030902@gmail.com> <BLU169-W136A55AC013DA147313576D93220@phx.gbl> <523CD42E.8070102@gmail.com> <BLU169-W82036280852F26ED26283C93230@phx.gbl> <523D4F17.2040202@gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BD01A8@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CALDtMrL5pT3MfbQufCphEKq0-pXj+JcfwW__wzG3T6wZ=TuWhg@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BD08EA@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CALDtMrLcUrxseyiaPc_0AWJw3HPdaBuAS+xpviT2q=y4zmdNgw@mail.gmail.com> <523FD5FD.8030601@gmail.com> <CALDtMrK=9D3qXXK6EeWF4RDk26GHPDgkYfQzdJpD33JNK_MeRw@mail.gmail.com> <523FE3E7.3060101@gmail.com> <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A0C0969@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A0C0969@008-AM1MPN1-043.mgdnok.nokia.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="us-ascii"
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 11:22:15 -0000

On: 23 September 2013 10:35 Markus.Isomaki Wrote:
> 
> There will be networks and administrators that explicitly want to
> restrict WebRTC. I think one part of the WebRTC firewall traversal
> "solution" needs to be an explanation HOW they can do it.
> 

I agree with this it is something we need to discuss and elaborate on in the draft.

The motivation behind the draft is to standardize the browser behavior in a way that there is a good chance of WebRTC media traversing firewalls by default but also to make it clear how browsers behave so that policy can be enforced when needed.

Andy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email