Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11

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

On: 17 September 2013 13:01 Magnus Westerlund Wrote:
> 3.2.3.1.  Description
> 
>    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.
> 
> If a firewall only allows HTTP traffic, then can we really assume that
> the firewall administrator per default will accept WebRTC Media and
> Data
> traffic?
> 
> I am far from certain of this, and think on a requirement level needs
> to
> express a situation where the firewall administrator allows WebRTC
> across its FW, or at least can easily configure a rule to block it.
> Thus
> resulting in that any solution for this needs to be easily identifiable
> and possible to block.
> 

Stefan already stated that this use case will be changed to take account of my comments in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg08264.html. So the "only allows HTTP traffic" is going to be removed and changed to describe the use case when the firewall requires traffic to flow via a HTTP Proxy. 

We also have a use case when a network specific TURN server is deployed (3.2.5.1).

In both cases I agree that a network administrator must have a way to block webrtc but there are various ways of achieving this including just configuring the browser not to do webrtc, normal HTTP black/white lists, and also I can imagine solutions based on putting something in the HTTP Connect sent to the proxy so the proxy can block it. 

So I agree that it must be possible to block webrtc traffic but we need to careful not to specify the solution in the use case.  

Andy