IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Fri, 12 July 2013 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6494021F99A6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:09:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FxApEK4erTKq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C135521F9635 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2250; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373641751; x=1374851351; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=qcBrLm6tcLQSZ6ngkKfAVc8ZoeRGzkRJi2lAdeX3KNE=; b=VtiwDS5JHBYwo9O7wHyKwVHOGmdbnqxyhsEEsUOIVYm7oPwyzOelZU77 hZFkAMDMDLkfeA6qc7P5Nx01QrWNpvcD/vPuZP2LXMkpbC/Vx1sNEytiH MKmfyZg/F6NFvsXxeSH6PBJxm8nZRIsy4deNTgkBqhuzTFYJWmqd7rWcb Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFAN8b4FGtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABagwaBA8FRgQkWdIIjAQEBAwE6PwULAgEIEQQBAQsUCQcyFAkIAgQOBQgTh24Gt1yPLgIxB4MLbAOpKYMSgig
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,653,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="234080689"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2013 15:09:06 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6CF96R2023719 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:09:06 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.116]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:09:05 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues
Thread-Index: AQHOft5ZQ5814mmC5UeNtbOepqDdYJlheZUA
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:09:05 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1135D6B20@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBuCTdFsUMtmuBz6BnrSJMpHywEZU+x+m8ARnGprvzDzA@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF116406C8@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF116406C8@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.76.68]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <57A2C1DA8156D3458F6286C5BF8EC9FE@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:09:17 -0000

Can you get specific about exactly what you want to discuss? The current solution ins the specs uses ICE, STUN, TURN and works thorough many firewalls but not all. What change would you like to see?

On Jul 12, 2013, at 2:01 AM, "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
 wrote:

> Regarding the FW traversal discussion then I still think we need a discussion in the RTCWEB WG and I hope to persuade the chairs that this is the case.
>  
> We have requirements in the use case draft and charter items that need solutions and this is a real issue impacting RTCWeb trials today.  
>  
> Regards
> Andy
>  
>  
>  
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
> Sent: 11 July 2013 17:51
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Cc: Cullen Jennings
> Subject: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87
>  
> Greetings,
> 
> Below is an initial draft agenda for the upcoming meeting.   Since we have not yet reached the draft deadline (which is the 15th), there may be new drafts or updates that result in changes.  We did already receive requests for NAT/Firewall traversal discussion, and the chairs will be working with the document authors to get them considered in the appropriate groups.
> 
> As folks have probably noticed, we are meeting Thursday and Friday, after the MMUSIC sessions are complete (they are Tuesday and Wednesday). This should allow us to discuss the results on our first day. 
> 
> Please send feedback or change proposals to the list.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Ted and Cullen
> 
> Day 1:
> 
> Should SDES be part of  WebRTC security practice and, if so, how?
> Presentations: 30 minutes
> Discussion:  40 minutes
> 
> Post-Plan A/Plan B MMUSIC discussion of impact to RTCWEB documents
> Presentation: 30 minutes
> Discussion: 30 minutes
> 
> Security document updates
> Presentation: 10 minutes
> Discussion: 10 minutes
> 
> Day 2:
> 
> Chair Discussion:  10 minutes
> 
> Use Case Requirements updates:
> Issues list presentation: 20 minutes
> Discussion: 20 minutes
> 
> Data channel:
> Issues list presentation:  45 minutes
> Discussion: 45 minutes
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email