IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Wed, 16 October 2013 08:02 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 06D8F11E8117 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 01:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.573, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, 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 eXHugCAAan6f for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 01:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AFAC21F9BD0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 01:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f738e000003ee3-77-525e480cfb66
Received: from ESESSHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 4A.FE.16099.C084E525; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:02:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.146]) by ESESSHC004.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.30]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:02:20 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "Chenxin (Xin)" <hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.com>, Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
Thread-Index: AQHOyjWVN5kp1LzBPE2VjgDW3Xis9Jn293kg
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 08:02:20 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4BFAC8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4BDDF9@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <00d601cec911$b0fd4b60$12f7e220$@co.in> <9E34D50A21D1D1489134B4D770CE0397680826A3@SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <9E34D50A21D1D1489134B4D770CE0397680826A3@SZXEMA504-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrFLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrS6PR1yQwb2XmhY3r/QyWkz+1Mdq sfZfO7sDs0fLkbesHkuW/GTy+DD/C3sAcxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxvPtzYwF+/gqFp9xbWC8 wt3FyMkhIWAisa/1DguELSZx4d56ti5GLg4hgcOMEjdnTmaEcJYwSiyeNpW9i5GDg03AQqL7 nzZIXESgjVHi+L33jCDdwgIREmfm3WUFsUUEIiVudl9jgbCNJM5cawSzWQRUJU5PbQSr5xXw lbg0fTUL3Lav166ANXMKhEl0PJnJDmIzAp30/dQaJhCbWUBc4taT+UwQpwpILNlznhnCFpV4 +fgfK8hxEgKKEsv75SDKdSQW7P7EBmFrSyxb+JoZYq+gxMmZT1gmMIrOQjJ1FpKWWUhaZiFp WcDIsoqRPTcxMye93HATIzA+Dm75rbuD8dQ5kUOM0hwsSuK8H946BwkJpCeWpGanphakFsUX leakFh9iZOLglGpgrHjH8P3w78D0laoHD1Q2yhR/sPqtaNjFWbxi460bX1lYyzbnnYjdsLNI ynrno1bH89vPbynYHMP8L7xRQ9x/YtnG+Wobv5mc/XKtd4nmXvfL743v+PGW5vJUq0V9Ubr+ Mtk1JNf7ppNhcffDX/tsok53LO55xFAa5szCxCL07baoYXjEBJPHSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAYc+p SF0CAAA=
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 08:02:27 -0000

Hi,

>  +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.

Consensus on what?

Note that the draft is only talking about requirements.

Regards,

Christer


>-----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