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

["Chenxin (Xin)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christer,

   That is not my purpose . I just want this document less ambiguous. I will try to figure out the things that need to consider in the use case and requirement based on the discussion in the pntaw. so we could decide if it is need to add ,modify or just keep .

Best Regards,
     Xin 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:32 PM
>To: Chenxin (Xin); Parthasarathi R; [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on
>draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
>
>Hi Xin,
>
>So, you are saying we shouldn't finalize the use-case-requirements document
>yet?
>
>Regards,
>
>Christer
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chenxin (Xin) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: 16. lokakuuta 2013 12:28
>To: Christer Holmberg; Parthasarathi R; [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on
>draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12
>
>Hi Christer,
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>>  +1. I think we should wait for the result of [e-mail]
>>> 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?
>
>Should we just consider the case that " one of the users is behind a FW that only
>allows traffic via a HTTP Proxy "? what will happen if there is no http proxy
>deployed?
>
>There are two options to solve this usecase discussed in PNTAW mailing list.
>"5)UDP relay candidates via some HTTP/TLS compatible transport (TURN) -
>MUST/SHOULD (TLS via HTTP CONNET or TURN over WebSockets have been
>proposed."  List in
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pntaw/current/msg00162.html
>Also there is other discussions in
>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pntaw/current/msg00166.html.
>
>That all mention that we should consider more than the http proxy scenarios.
>
>I believe that the PNTAW mailing list is used for discussion of these similar
>transport problems, including the related use case and requirement. In the end ,
>some consensus should be make to decide what problem we need handle and
>how to solve it , which will influence the use case and requirement to make it
>more clear.  Is my thought right? Or miss something...
>
>Best Regards,
>     Xin
>>
>>Note that the draft is only talking about requirements.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Christer
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>Behalf Of Parthasarathi R
>>>Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:15 AM
>>>To: 'Christer Holmberg'; [e-mail]
>>>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
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb