Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements - HTTP Only Firewall.

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

Sounds good to me.

Regards
Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Håkansson LK [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 11 July 2013 07:44
> To: Hutton, Andrew
> Cc: rt >> "[e-mail]"
> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements - HTTP Only
> Firewall.
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> thanks for catching this!
> 
> F37 currently reads:
> 
> "The browser must be able to send streams and data to a peer in the
> presence of FWs that only allows http(s) traffic."
> 
> Would a change to:
> 
> "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."
> 
> be correct?
> 
> Br,
> Stefan
> 
> 
> On 7/10/13 4:00 PM, Hutton, Andrew wrote:
> > 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: [e-mail]
> >> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stefan Håkansson LK
> >> Sent: 27 June 2013 09:50 To: rt >> "[e-mail]" 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: [e-mail] <[e-mail]> To:
> >> Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>,    Göran
> >> Eriksson AP <[e-mail]>,    Stefan Håkansson
> >> LK <[e-mail]>,    Göran Eriksson AP
> >> <[e-mail]>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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 [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >