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

Thanks for the clarification.  Your last point explains the logic to me and
I do agree.

Mary.

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com
> wrote:

>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 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]
> >
>
> Yes, I am asking that the discussion of how webrtc clients, proxies, NATs
> and TURN servers interact is done on the  pntaw@ietf.org list.
>
> You can go here to sign up at:
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw
>
> That includes the draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations draft
> and the topic of it it should be adopted by the rtcweb WG. That list was
> created more or less for that draft.
>
> The reason we want it on a seperate list is people such as security folks
> that do not currently subscribe to rtcweb@ietf want to be able to follow
> the firewall discussions without having to deal with the volume of email we
> sometimes see on rtcweb.
>
> Thanks. Cullen (with my co-chair hat on)
>
>
>
>
>
>