Re: [pntaw] I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-03.txt

I probably should have referenced draft-penno-rtcweb-pcp-00 in our firewall considerations draft.

However I just noticed it has expired do the authors intend to maintain this draft?

Regards
Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pntaw [mailto:pntaw-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hutton, Andrew
> Sent: 20 January 2014 12:10
> To: pntaw@ietf.org
> Subject: [pntaw] FW: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-
> considerations-03.txt
> 
> I updated draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-consideration.
> 
> The main change is that the draft now explores the different options
> that are available for handling such things as HTTP Proxies in a WebRTC
> environment and no longer recommends a specific solution.
> 
> Would be good to restart the discussion on these options and
> determining the best way forward to ensuring we get some defined
> standardized behavior for WebRTC for these scenarios.
> 
> So please go ahead and make comments.
> 
> Regards
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> internet-drafts@ietf.org
> Sent: 20 January 2014 11:35
> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-
> 03.txt
> 
> 
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> 
> 
>         Title           : RTCWEB Considerations for NATs, Firewalls and
> HTTP proxies
>         Authors         : Thomas Stach
>                           Andrew Hutton
>                           Justin Uberti
> 	Filename        : draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-
> considerations-03.txt
> 	Pages           : 14
> 	Date            : 2014-01-20
> 
> Abstract:
>    This document describes mechanism to enable media stream
>    establishment for Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers (WebRTC)
> in
>    the presence of network address translators, firewalls and HTTP
>    proxies.  HTTP proxy and firewall deployed in many private network
>    domains introduce obstacles to the successful establishment of media
>    stream via WebRTC.  This document examines some of these deployment
>    scenarios and specifies requirements on WebRTC enabled web browsers
>    designed to provide the best possible chance of media connectivity
>    between WebRTC peers.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-
> considerations/
> 
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-
> considerations-03
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-
> considerations-03
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> _______________________________________________
> pntaw mailing list
> pntaw@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw