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

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Fri, 20 September 2013 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.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 56E5D21F9CED for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.577
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 YfIQhTiS-v6i for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAAFD21F9CE9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id C67DF23F0542; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 19:57:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.31]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 19:57:39 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11
Thread-Index: AQHOs51tjte/V8mikk+NN5idi26Ro5nO5Y8g
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:57:38 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BCF581@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11667BBA0@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <5238446D.8050700@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <5238446D.8050700@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11
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: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:58:07 -0000

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