Re: [rtcweb] HTTP Fallback draft

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Wed, 08 August 2012 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 B15DD21F853B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.659
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 zbd7cSuXp+Aa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E859421F84F5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lahm15 with SMTP id m15so506739lah.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=y2NUrnEc4MIesgHlt5QXatEoUrGMl4yIcDyDYtAT7zU=; b=Ch8i6GZOftBvMOWqFsTMzX7ExXpqeOTq3f16ePapst/Po4uwzVhTcniFiNpYOw3C6g 8GgDO4ckcyE7D4PpGaqDRqjAbwOM7rpHnrUxQ8zJrwdDri43Fkx+wlEcUZEq/sjeOOjF 40wuvejCPU1oDbBrMSL/nlteVvgWB+4BgjUHMITz+dREsTMb6u2oEgzZK+RgSIfApACc G8nIj8mM66i8VstOou3YHQ2K3S9JHHtfPR0ELTJ/n9qx0OeV7XxjgKvGP0CkQ4RsD/GA 5ted2aHEn02u60T6x8U4w9xMJkog8xZyX9ho2al050rwLAon8jBMpkWRydFkDThr/MUt Lsyg==
Received: by 10.152.112.233 with SMTP id it9mr18340208lab.40.1344438636733; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.114.23.2 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSU8mzbcdbOkgGtAms1tdHhjiuQn_NFXELwO2kjegJkCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120807180156.286e74d2@rainpc> <D5BDA7BE-FE55-47FA-99FD-1645084370B0@gmx.net> <20120807191226.5b8e7f32@rainpc> <BLU401-EAS2566333A7F4DEA0D3BFDBE593CD0@phx.gbl> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A1477EDB9@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CAD6AjGSU8mzbcdbOkgGtAms1tdHhjiuQn_NFXELwO2kjegJkCQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:10:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmdh_o547m-=ya91pF+drKW1diYkA+n-R3-bydZGECzPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk1BchdLfvBZYrZJtrGAPJKAqO1mRMGUB9O0KCAG1Yr2PS9KOYt+x8lwIZ1JgA6KQ8Zdn0Z
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] HTTP Fallback draft
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, 08 Aug 2012 15:10:46 -0000

2012/8/8 Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>om>:
> Is this thread  really about the ietf engineering a way to by-pass network
> policy set by network operators?
>
> I do not believe that is acceptable.

Not exactly. Imagine the classic example of hotels providing free WiFi
(but just for HTTP and HTTPS). They do allow their clients to visit
web pages and, therefore, I could expect that they would also allow
any kind of communication that takes place within the web page.

WebRTC introduces UDP, RTP, ICE and more stuf into the WWW world.
These protocols could be blocked in some scenarios (hotel WiFi) but
that does not necessarily mean that the network admins want to block
WebRTC (since it occurs "within" the WWW they already allow).

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>