Re: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt)

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <> Tue, 27 August 2013 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844C621E809C for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.572
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RTyO57V76RN0 for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935B221E8097 for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2594; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1377626223; x=1378835823; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=reblxcflvRkviJ+rgJR2JFxBHb2P7CdUE5+V+MvG+8w=; b=ORQ31vBzzAFFfKCGUe3I17YwDvi8GkmZpEMytUZu4LrZIQ5nPUJYQKs2 mniSlmSYCgOPSeK2bkAcfu65/wTdljgK5eL2ACh7qC+ihKbJn5Il4VADM TjGyDh3lIn0xFIffCbTojIroOqzmOW22HsjCRRuj82p9Goo33DwrsgP3O M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,969,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="252359407"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2013 17:57:03 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7RHv2Uf024000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:57:02 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 12:57:02 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
To: Mary Barnes <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHOo0NMD91wo4zdmUmwnJ7HDk7AL5mpqvSA
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:57:01 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:57:37 -0000

On Aug 27, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Mary Barnes <> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:53 AM, wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would support the adoption of the NAT and Firewall considerations ( as a WG document. Or to be more precise, I very much agree with the requirements summarized in Section 5. Especially this one seems important to me:
> >
> > o  connect to a TURN server via a HTTP proxy using the HTTP connect
> >       method,
> >
> > If we want WebRTC to work from many corporate networks I’m aware of, it would not be possible without this as a fallback capability.
> >
> > Markus
> >
> >
> Have you tried if this work with your corporate firewalls? We are trying to get more information about that and info about if the TURN server needs to run on the TURN port or port 443.
> Thanks, Cullen with my co chair hat on. PS - Real Soon Now we are going to ask people to move this diction to a separate list so that others can follow it without having to wade through all the rtcweb traffic.
> [MB] I'm slightly puzzled by this suggestion.  Are you suggesting that any discussion of the hutton rtcweb draft (which is being proposed as WG item should be on a separate mailing list?  Or are you referring to more general discussions or are you considering this to be a more WebRTC discussion?   There's not been at all a huge amount of discussion on this RTCWEB mailing list that I find it to be overload. I personally find the cross postings to the W3C list and this mailing list to generate a whole lot of extra email in my mailbox. [/MB]

Yes, I am asking that the discussion of how webrtc clients, proxies, NATs and TURN servers interact is done on the list. 

You can go here to sign up at:

That includes the draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations draft and the topic of it it should be adopted by the rtcweb WG. That list was created more or less for that draft. 

The reason we want it on a seperate list is people such as security folks that do not currently subscribe to rtcweb@ietf want to be able to follow the firewall discussions without having to deal with the volume of email we sometimes see on rtcweb. 

Thanks. Cullen (with my co-chair hat on)