Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues

["Hutton, Andrew" <[e-mail]>]

I totally don't follow this argument.

What we need is for RTCWEB browsers to behave in a standardized way in environments where there is a FW requiring the flow to come from a HTTP Proxy. Defining this is clearly within the scope of RTCWEB and if we move the work to BEHAVE we still need a RTCWEB specification to say what rtcweb implementations are required to implement.

The charter states the wg will.

"Define the solution - protocols and API requirements - for firewall and NAT traversal".

It also states:

"This work will be done primarily by using already defined protocols or functionalities. If there is identification of missing protocols or functionalities, such work can be requested to be done in another working group with a suitable charter or by requests for chartering it in this WG or another WG".

We have not so far identified any missing protocol or functionality so why do you ask the work to be moved to a different group?

With regard to the full agenda I for one think we can find time for this rather than again circling through the endless discussion on some of the other topics. I am not sure also why we need 40 mins to discuss the use case updates time would be better spent finding solutions for the existing use cases.

If you think that nobody will object then surely we can get this over very quickly.

Agree there has not been enough discussion on the draft but I have received only positive feedback including some comments off list.

Regards
Andy





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 12 July 2013 16:31
> To: Hutton, Andrew
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues
> 
> 
> So section 3.3.1 of draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations
> provides a brief sketch of an extension to TURN clients to use a HTTP
> proxy.
> 
> I would be shocked to see anyone in this WG tell you not to do that,
> it's been discussed many times in the past. But in the end this WG will
> either say we like it, take it to BEHAVE, or it will say we hate it in
> which case as and individual draft you will still probably take it to
> BEHAVE. You probably want to keep an eye on HTTP2 stuff and
> implications to this too.
> 
> We had not much list discussion on this draft. We have an agenda very
> full of WG items that are very controversial. We could put it at the
> end of the agenda with "time permitting" but to be honest, I sort of
> doubt we would get to it. Is there some question you think you want
> feedback from this group on that we could start on this list or
> something?
> 
> I'm just trying to be realistic about the outcomes of this draft - we
> could discuss it in RTCWeb for 3 meetings before proposing a  TURN
> extension in behave but in the end I suspect we could just short
> circuit all that.
> 
> 
> On Jul 12, 2013, at 8:17 AM, "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-
> enterprise.com> wrote:
> 
> > What we want to discuss is a solution to the HTTP (Proxy) only FW use
> case as described in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-
> cases-and-requirements-11#section-3.2.3. This is not solved by the
> current specs.
> >
> > The draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-
> firewall-considerations-01 proposes a solution based on using HTTP
> Connect and some other related browser best practice requirements but
> also discusses alternatives.
> >
> > We want to discuss solving this use case and hopefully get this draft
> adopted.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: 12 July 2013 16:09
> >> To: Hutton, Andrew
> >> Cc: Ted Hardie; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues
> >>
> >>
> >> Can you get specific about exactly what you want to discuss? The
> >> current solution ins the specs uses ICE, STUN, TURN and works
> thorough
> >> many firewalls but not all. What change would you like to see?
> >>
> >> On Jul 12, 2013, at 2:01 AM, "Hutton, Andrew"
> <andrew.hutton@siemens-
> >> enterprise.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Regarding the FW traversal discussion then I still think we need a
> >> discussion in the RTCWEB WG and I hope to persuade the chairs that
> this
> >> is the case.
> >>>
> >>> We have requirements in the use case draft and charter items that
> >> need solutions and this is a real issue impacting RTCWeb trials
> today.
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >> Behalf Of Ted Hardie
> >>> Sent: 11 July 2013 17:51
> >>> To: [e-mail]
> >>> Cc: Cullen Jennings
> >>> Subject: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87
> >>>
> >>> Greetings,
> >>>
> >>> Below is an initial draft agenda for the upcoming meeting.   Since
> we
> >> have not yet reached the draft deadline (which is the 15th), there
> may
> >> be new drafts or updates that result in changes.  We did already
> >> receive requests for NAT/Firewall traversal discussion, and the
> chairs
> >> will be working with the document authors to get them considered in
> the
> >> appropriate groups.
> >>>
> >>> As folks have probably noticed, we are meeting Thursday and Friday,
> >> after the MMUSIC sessions are complete (they are Tuesday and
> >> Wednesday). This should allow us to discuss the results on our first
> >> day.
> >>>
> >>> Please send feedback or change proposals to the list.
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Ted and Cullen
> >>>
> >>> Day 1:
> >>>
> >>> Should SDES be part of  WebRTC security practice and, if so, how?
> >>> Presentations: 30 minutes
> >>> Discussion:  40 minutes
> >>>
> >>> Post-Plan A/Plan B MMUSIC discussion of impact to RTCWEB documents
> >>> Presentation: 30 minutes
> >>> Discussion: 30 minutes
> >>>
> >>> Security document updates
> >>> Presentation: 10 minutes
> >>> Discussion: 10 minutes
> >>>
> >>> Day 2:
> >>>
> >>> Chair Discussion:  10 minutes
> >>>
> >>> Use Case Requirements updates:
> >>> Issues list presentation: 20 minutes
> >>> Discussion: 20 minutes
> >>>
> >>> Data channel:
> >>> Issues list presentation:  45 minutes
> >>> Discussion: 45 minutes
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb