Hi Xin & all,

 

Apart from modified F29 by Xin, the following requirement has to be
discussed: 

1)      New requirement for blocking incoming TCP connection:

a.        The browser must be able to send streams and data to a peer in the
presence of NATs and FWs that block UDP traffic and incoming TCP connection

2)      New requirement to cover both browsers are behind the firewall

a.         The browser must be able to send streams and data to a peer in
the presence of NATs and FWs that block UDP traffic and incoming TCP
connection  in both browser side as well as in the peer side (TURN only
works) 

 

Thanks

Partha

 

From: Chenxin (Xin) [mailto:hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 3:54 PM
To: Hutton, Andrew; Christer Holmberg; Parthasarathi R; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on
draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12

 

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 

 

 

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Hutton, Andrew [mailto:andrew.hutton@unify.com]

>Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:08 AM

>To: Christer Holmberg; Chenxin (Xin); Parthasarathi R; rtcweb@ietf.org

>Subject: RE: [rtcweb] Query/Comment on

>draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-12

> 

>Hi Xin,

> 

>I see the PNTAW mailing list as being there to discuss potential solutions
to

>these requirements which are documented in the use case draft.

> 

>The requirement F37 is specific to the case when there is a HTTP Proxy and
F27

>would include the case when there is no proxy.

> 

>Do you see other use cases and requirements that need to be explicitly
brought

>out in draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements?

> 

>Regards

>Andy

> 

> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On

>> Behalf Of Christer Holmberg

>> Sent: 16 October 2013 10:32

>> To: Chenxin (Xin); Parthasarathi R; rtcweb@ietf.org

>> 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:hangzhou.chenxin@huawei.com]

>> Sent: 16. lokakuuta 2013 12:28

>> To: Christer Holmberg; Parthasarathi R; rtcweb@ietf.org

>> 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 PNTAW@ietf.org

>> >> 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: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On

>> >>Behalf Of Parthasarathi R

>> >>Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 3:15 AM

>> >>To: 'Christer Holmberg'; rtcweb@ietf.org

>> >>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

>> >>rtcweb@ietf.org

>> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

>> _______________________________________________

>> rtcweb mailing list

>> rtcweb@ietf.org

>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb