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

["Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <[e-mail]>]

Changes proposed by Chenxin look good.

-Tiru.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Parthasarathi R
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:49 AM
> To: 'Magnus Westerlund'; 'Chenxin (Xin)'; 'Hutton, Andrew'; 'Christer
> Holmberg'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
> requirements-12
> 
> I support Chenxin proposal.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:50 PM
> > To: Chenxin (Xin); Hutton, Andrew; Christer Holmberg; Parthasarathi R;
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on
> > draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-
> > requirements-12
> >
> > WG,
> >
> > It has been quite some time since the WG last call ended and a new
> > revision was submitted. As Document Shepherd I want to push this
> > document to publication request.
> >
> > Chenxin proposed below three different sets of changes to the document.
> > Does the WG support making these changes? Please indicate within the
> > next week if you support or want to reject these changes.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Magnus
> >
> >
> > On 2013-10-17 12:23, Chenxin (Xin) wrote:
> > > Hi Andy,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   I think you means F29 not F27:). When I read it , I realize that
> > there
> > > is cross and ambiguous between 3.3.2 and 3.3.3
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   More details:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   The topic of 3.3.2 is "Simple Video Communication Service,
> > > *NAT/FW* that blocks UDP". But in the description and requirement,
> > > only *NAT*
> > is
> > > considered.
> > >
> > >   The topic of 3.3.3 is "Simple Video Communication Service, FW that
> > > only allows http", But only *http proxy* deployed scenarios is
> > considered.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   There are other usecases " FW block UDP, incoming TCP, Http
> > allowing
> > > FW without http proxy deplolyed under the permission of FW policy" ,
> > > which is lost in the description. If we need consider these usecases
> > , I
> > > suggest to make some change to the description.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   Proposal 1 :
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   add FW related words to section 3.3.2
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > 3.3.2.  Simple Video Communication Service, NAT/FW that blocks UDP
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3.3.2.1.  Description
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >    This use-case is almost identical to the Simple Video
> > Communication
> > >
> > >    Service use-case (Section 3.3.1).  The difference is that one of
> > the
> > >
> > >    users is behind a NAT*/FW* that blocks UDP traffic.
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3.3.2.2.  Additional Requirements
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >    F29     The browser must be able to send streams and
> > >
> > >            data to a peer in the presence of NATs *and FWs* that
> > >
> > >            block UDP traffic ,* when FW policy allows WebRTC
> > traffic*.
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >    Proposal 2: If the" Http allowing FW without http proxy deployed"
> > > case is impliedly included in F29. I suggest to change the topics of
> > > 3.3.3 to "Simple Video Communication Service, FW that only allows
> > > traffic via a http proxy". So the 3.3.3 is a specific case.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >     Proposal 3: If " Http allowing FW without http proxy deployed"
> > case
> > > need to be explicitly mentioned. I suggest to add some descriptions
> > to 3.3.3
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > 3.3.3.  Simple Video Communication Service, FW that only allows http
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3.3.3.1.  Description
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >    This use-case is almost identical to the Simple Video
> > Communication
> > >
> > >    Service use-case (Section 3.3.1).  The difference is that one of
> > the
> > >
> > >    users is behind a http allowing FW or a FW that only allows
> > traffic
> > > via a HTTP Proxy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3.3.3.2.  Additional Requirements
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >    F37     The browser must be able to send streams and
> > >
> > >            data to a peer in the presence of http allowing FWs or
> > > FWs that only
> > >
> > >            allows traffic via a HTTP Proxy, when FW policy
> > >
> > >            allows WebRTC traffic.
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > >      Xin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > 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]
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb