Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft -- Enterprise Policies

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 02 May 2012 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD25921E8096 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 bQrnc3uNskcA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 293A421E8044 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so743324vbb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 May 2012 09:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=77xO+RAwfJ5VGUyEbxHsCqfWoTqER+fER0uuQXe0IL0=; b=fsbq7hvJFIuzMILTUcgz4kg/LP22/WKhEQt6KIUYu9XC10DXsG6jl4hbgM1To4Wuzu 4OCF2BaRMIQTx+4MUoZXVIi960YMymEoLDRvkXJ8B3ML5bTmEGQFdMy0SELItFPN4gEA oAF17JpF6XudLR9Jpp8ooWwLzhXfGMSQy6/OmEJ5HjxE5JVT6zCOm34oId+R34v+ygPd nC0tT7pRK/9f9cR33JLkmIGtGI9eIr7jF7Mawka8CkEjeQbIcJdsE2VRQHwvuEFupMlx 78+2CWuTh7BLbxPVUmYL98Sd8D363yv3fC9uf/BEFEybUSjPfpUovFfG8U1FsRphaIec SLcg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.38.167 with SMTP id h7mr21889090vdk.109.1335977854647; Wed, 02 May 2012 09:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.162.99 with HTTP; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxu5fdcfSyBNS8d0uGY-AT1syyAxBh1E3v8ihGsboHWveg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD5OKxu5fdcfSyBNS8d0uGY-AT1syyAxBh1E3v8ihGsboHWveg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 09:57:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBDK5KM2S1SEiNx56aSb8UtvivEnL-3JoOriACaegNp0w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft -- Enterprise Policies
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 16:57:36 -0000

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
> Couple more use cases that I've mentioned on this least before had to do
> with enforcing enterprise policies onĀ  Web RTC clients at the enterprise
> location. Keep in mind that I am not looking for a way to disable WebRTC in
> the location completely, but to restrict its use of functionality. I see the
> following scenarios:
>
> 1. Enterprise would like to limit the amount of bandwidth available for
> WebRTC communications per location and per user.
>

It's a bit hard to tease this apart from general per-user fairness methods
and methods that would generally provide (or limit) capabilities for types of
flows.  Why would an enterprise apply different limits because they were
signalled with WebRTC?

regards,

Ted