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

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com
> wrote:

>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:53 AM, markus.isomaki@nokia.com wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would support the adoption of the NAT and Firewall considerations (
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-01)
> 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]

>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>