Re: [rtcweb] draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements - HTTP Only Firewall.
"Hutton, Andrew" <email@example.com> Thu, 11 July 2013 08:28 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3AC21F9D5C for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 01:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([220.127.116.11]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0owZ3pH+V-uk for <email@example.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 01:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [18.104.22.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ABA221F924A for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 01:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by senmx11-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 1E15B1EB8594; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:28:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.137]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:28:26 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <email@example.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements - HTTP Only Firewall.
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:28:26 +0000
References: <email@example.com> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C306ECD@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1163B018@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C3104E7@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Cc: "rt >> \"firstname.lastname@example.org\"" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [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: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:28:35 -0000
Sounds good to me. Regards Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefan Håkansson LK [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: 11 July 2013 07:44 > To: Hutton, Andrew > Cc: rt >> "email@example.com" > 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: 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