IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Chenxin (Xin)" <hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.com> Wed, 16 October 2013 06:04 UTC

Return-Path: <hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.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 9029111E80F9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 23:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Bjn6U1ymHSKC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 23:04:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD1B11E80FC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 23:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AZC96501; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 06:04:31 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 07:03:36 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.37) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.0; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 07:04:22 +0100
Received: from SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.96]) by SZXEMA405-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:04:15 +0800
From: "Chenxin (Xin)" <hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.com>
To: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>, 'Christer Holmberg' <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
Thread-Index: AQHOyRG+14fmt6ButUmt5DEypMFDB5n2lTUA
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 06:04:15 +0000
Message-ID: <9E34D50A21D1D1489134B4D770CE0397680826A3@SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4BDDF9@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <00d601cec911$b0fd4b60$12f7e220$@co.in>
In-Reply-To: <00d601cec911$b0fd4b60$12f7e220$@co.in>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.166.41.125]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
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, 16 Oct 2013 06:04:47 -0000

Hi Christer,

  +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.


Best Regards,
     Xin 

>-----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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email