Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements

Hi Andrew,

thanks for catching this!

F37 currently reads:

"The browser must be able to send streams and data to a peer in the 
presence of FWs that only allows http(s) traffic."

Would a change to:

"The browser must be able to send streams and data to a peer in the 
presence of FWs that only allows traffic via a HTTP Proxy."

be correct?

Br,
Stefan

On 7/10/13 4:00 PM, Hutton, Andrew wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Regarding the use case in 3.2.3 covering a HTTP only FW the text
> states:
>
> "This use-case is almost identical to the Simple Video Communication
> Service use-case (Section 3.2.1).  The difference is that one of the
> users is behind a FW that only allows http traffic".
>
> This needs to be changed to allow for the common case when a HTTP
> Proxy is deployed so I suggest changing the last sentence to
>
> "The difference is that one of the users is behind a FW that only
> allows traffic via a HTTP Proxy".
>
> There also needs to be a corresponding change to requirement F37.
>
> I believe we have previously discussed changing this but have to
> admit I could not fine the e-mail chain so maybe it was during a
> meeting.
>
> Regards Andy
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org
>> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stefan Håkansson LK
>> Sent: 27 June 2013 09:50 To: rt >> "rtcweb@ietf.org" Subject:
>> [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-rtcweb-
>> use-cases-and-requirements-11.txt
>>
>> From the change log:
>>
>> o  Described that the API requirements are really from a W3C
>> perspective and are supplied as an appendix in the introduction.
>> Moved API requirements to an Appendix.
>>
>> o  Removed the "Conventions" section with the key-words and
>> reference to RFC2119.  Also changed uppercase MUST's/SHOULD's to
>> lowercase.
>>
>> o  Added a note on the proposed use of the document to the
>> introduction.
>>
>> o  Removed the note talking about WS from the "FW that only allows
>> http" use-case.
>>
>> o  Removed the word "Skype" that was used as example in one of the
>> use-cases.
>>
>> o  Clarified F3 (the req saying the everything the browser sends
>> must be rate controlled).
>>
>> o  Removed the TBD saying we need to define reasonable levels from
>> the requirement saying that quality must be good even in presence
>> of packet losses (F5), and changed "must" to "should" (Based on a
>> list discussion involving Bernard).
>>
>> o  Removed F6 ("The browser must be able to handle high loss and
>> jitter levels in a graceful way."), also after a list discussion.
>>
>> o  Clarified F7 (used to say that the browser must support fast
>> stream switches, now says that reference frames must be inserted
>> when requested). o  Removed the questions from F9 (echo
>> cancellation), F10 (syncronization), F21 (telephony codec).
>>
>> o  Exchanged "restrictive firewalls" for "limited middleboxes" in
>> F19 (as proposed by Martin).
>>
>> o  Expanded DTMF and IVR in F22 (proposed by Martin)
>>
>> o  Added ref to RFC5405 in F23 (proposed by Lars Eggert).
>>
>> o  Exchanged "service provided" for "web application" in F32.
>>
>> o  Changed the text in 3.2.1 that motivates F36 (new text "It is
>> essential that media and data be encrypted, authenticated ... bound
>> to the user identity."); and rewrote F36, included a ref to
>> RFC5479.
>>
>> o  Changed "quality of service" to "quality of experience" in F38.
>>
>> o  Added F39.
>>
>> o  Used new formulation of A17 (proposed by Martin).
>>
>> o  Updated A20.
>>
>> o  Updated A25.
>>
>> Things that have not been done:
>>
>> - No use-case on emergency services added (as said already in
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07253.html)
>>
>> - No use-case on real-time text added (as said already in
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07254.html)
>>
>> - No clarification on what solution(s) related to multiple
>> resolutions of the same content added (discussed in
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg07256.html
>> but no input received).
>>
>> - The order of the requirements (Fn) is still a mess - but I kept
>> it as is for this version to make diffing simpler. To be fixed in
>> an upcoming version.
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version
>> Notification for
>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11.txt Date: 10:40
>> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org <internet-drafts@ietf.org> To:
>> Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>,    Göran
>> Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>,    Stefan Håkansson
>> LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>,    Göran Eriksson AP
>> <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
>>
>>
>> A new version of I-D,
>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements- 11.txt has been
>> successfully submitted by Christer Holmberg and posted to the IETF
>> repository.
>>
>> Filename:	 draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements Revision:
>> 11 Title:		 Web Real-Time Communication Use-cases and Requirements
>> Creation date:	 2013-06-27 Group:		 rtcweb Number of pages: 30
>> URL:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
>>
>>
requirements-11.txt
>> Status:
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
>> requirements Htmlized:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
>> requirements-11 Diff:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
>> requirements-11
>>
>> Abstract: This document describes web based real-time communication
>> use- cases. Requirements on the browser functionality are derived
>> from use- cases.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing
>> list rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements - HTTP Only Firewall.