IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] rtcweb-gateways- Statis IP Address Comment

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com> Thu, 30 April 2015 08:30 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0001AD05C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 01:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gWgYJ4-nuUMe for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 01:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx12.unify.com (mx12.unify.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5A11AD059 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 01:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by mx12.unify.com (Server) with ESMTP id 733ED23F058F; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:30:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.54]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 10:30:27 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "Rauschenbach, Uwe (Nokia - DE/Munich)" <uwe.rauschenbach@nokia.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: rtcweb-gateways- Statis IP Address Comment
Thread-Index: AQHQgx/pXiFFWqJNpkG9pL4WTR9CtQ==
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:30:27 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E7547BD@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <D8920B96-7C22-4F9F-B323-FC59120C7508@ieca.com>, <5531EFD2.5010107@alvestrand.no> <56C2F665D49E0341B9DF5938005ACDF81962D96C@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AAEC0E1EC8@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <5537CA1F.1060209@alvestrand.no> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF1E75341E@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <55412808.7040409@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <55412808.7040409@alvestrand.no>
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
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/nQkqTagrOOkX0MWZ_ZO9vcJlxH4>
Subject: [rtcweb] rtcweb-gateways- Statis IP Address Comment
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:30:31 -0000

Section 2 contains the following text:

"Since a gateway is expected to be deployed where it can be reached with a static IP address (as seen from the client), a WebRTC gateway does not need to support full ICE; it therefore MAY implement ICE-Lite only".

It might be a minor comment but I think it is wrong to say that a gateway "is expected to be deployed where it can be reached with a static IP address" and this gives the wrong impression.

A gateway might be deployed in such a way but I would not say it is expected to be deployed that way.

So I suggest the following text.

"A WebRTC gateway which is deployed where it can be reached with a static IP address (as seen from the client), does not need to support full ICE; it therefore MAY implement ICE-Lite only".

Regards
Andy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email