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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

On 2014-02-03 16:41, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- From: rtcweb
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund 
>> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 2:32 PM To: Parthasarathi R; 'Cb B';
>> 'Simon Perreault' Cc: [e-mail] Subject: Re: [rtcweb]
>> Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and- requirements-12
>> 
>> Hi Partha,
>> 
>> Personal opinion:
>> 
>> I think the below places the text in the wrong context. The note is
>> in my mind relevant in the context of the general NAT/FW traversal
>> requirements, not the one discussing need to support multiple
>> NAT/FW traversal servers. Thus, I think Section 3.3.2 and thus
>> requirement F29. Or potentially regarding Requirement F2. Is more
>> appropriate places to include this.
> 
> F29, F2 does not mention any NAT/FW traversal techniques. F29 just
> discusses the problems with NAT but IPv6 Firewalls could also be
> configured to block UDP traffic. F19 Requirement seems to be missing
> in the latest version.
> 

Regarding F29 and F2, that is the benefit of having solution neutral
requirements. Thus, these requirements are not blocking or hindering you
from proposing additional solutions or implementation requirements when
it comes to NAT/FW traversal. Thus, these requirements applies to UDP
blocking IPv6 firewalls as well as other types.

cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------