[rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements - HTTP Only Firewall.
"Hutton, Andrew" <email@example.com> Wed, 10 July 2013 14:00 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCA221F9F2E for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:00:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([184.108.40.206]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zYJyFxNmeqAp for <email@example.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [220.127.116.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9131221F9F00 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 61BB81EB8690; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:00:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.137]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:00:10 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <email@example.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "rt >> \"email@example.com\"" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements - HTTP Only Firewall.
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:00:08 +0000
References: <email@example.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C306ECD@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements - HTTP Only Firewall.
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:00:22 -0000
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: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On > Behalf Of Stefan Håkansson LK > Sent: 27 June 2013 09:50 > To: rt >> "firstname.lastname@example.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: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> > To: Christer Holmberg <email@example.com>om>, Göran > Eriksson AP <firstname.lastname@example.org>om>, Stefan Håkansson LK > <email@example.com>om>, Göran Eriksson AP > <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > > 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 > email@example.com > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- [rtcweb] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-… Stefan Håkansson LK
- [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirem… Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requ… Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requ… Hutton, Andrew