Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12

Hi Xin,

I see the PNTAW mailing list as being there to discuss potential solutions to these requirements which are documented in the use case draft.

The requirement F37 is specific to the case when there is a HTTP Proxy and F27 would include the case when there is no proxy.

Do you see other use cases and requirements that need to be explicitly brought out in draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements?

Regards
Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
> Sent: 16 October 2013 10:32
> To: Chenxin (Xin); Parthasarathi R; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
> requirements-12
> 
> Hi Xin,
> 
> So, you are saying we shouldn't finalize the use-case-requirements
> document yet?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chenxin (Xin) [mailto:hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.com]
> Sent: 16. lokakuuta 2013 12:28
> To: Christer Holmberg; Parthasarathi R; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
> requirements-12
> 
> Hi Christer,
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >>  +1. I think we should wait for the result of PNTAW@ietf.org
> >> discussion
> >before modifying the related use case and requirement. there seems no
> >clear consensus by now.
> >>
> >>  The related use case is 3.3.2 , F29 , 3.3.3 and F37.
> >
> >Consensus on what?
> 
> Should we just consider the case that " one of the users is behind a FW
> that only allows traffic via a HTTP Proxy "? what will happen if there
> is no http proxy deployed?
> 
> There are two options to solve this usecase discussed in PNTAW mailing
> list. "5)UDP relay candidates via some HTTP/TLS compatible transport
> (TURN) - MUST/SHOULD (TLS via HTTP CONNET or TURN over WebSockets have
> been proposed."  List in http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/pntaw/current/msg00162.html
> Also there is other discussions in http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/pntaw/current/msg00166.html.
> 
> That all mention that we should consider more than the http proxy
> scenarios.
> 
> I believe that the PNTAW mailing list is used for discussion of these
> similar transport problems, including the related use case and
> requirement. In the end , some consensus should be make to decide what
> problem we need handle and how to solve it , which will influence the
> use case and requirement to make it more clear.  Is my thought right?
> Or miss something...
> 
> Best Regards,
>      Xin
> >
> >Note that the draft is only talking about requirements.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Christer
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >>Behalf Of Parthasarathi R
> >>Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:15 AM
> >>To: 'Christer Holmberg'; rtcweb@ietf.org
> >>Subject: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on
> >>draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
> >>
> >>Hi Christer & all,
> >>
> >>In PNTAW mailing list, there is a discussion on firewall blocking
> >>incoming TCP traffic when the firewall blocks UDP or allows only HTTP
> >>traffic. The related link is
> >>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pntaw/current/msg00166.html.
> >>
> >>Could you please clarify whether F29 & F37 requirement implicitly
> >>indicates that incoming TCP/HTTP traffic is blocked for browser when
> >>these requirements are met. If so, Please update the below
> requirement
> >>text with those details.
> >>
> >>Thanks
> >>Partha
> >>
> >>Note:
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>   F29     The browser must be able to send streams and
> >>           data to a peer in the presence of NATs that
> >>           block UDP traffic.
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------
> >>  F37     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, when FW policy
> >>           allows WebRTC traffic.
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>rtcweb mailing list
> >>rtcweb@ietf.org
> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb