IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 29 August 2013 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 BC4FB11E8125 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.829
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.829 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.626, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 4vQCOa9g2TPp for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s12.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s12.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70F811E812E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU403-EAS115 ([65.55.111.73]) by blu0-omc2-s12.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:51:31 -0700
X-TMN: [+yMz/Bn4A0//Cl+d2HqYeAs+O+9NL0q8]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU403-EAS115D59D112249BCA5A7D4CC93340@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <E44893DD4E290745BB608EB23FDDB7620A0906A4@008-AM1MPN1-041.mgdnok.nokia.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB116648FE2@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <CAHBDyN6+PAPa7RmgYmWTirPJBVRHLdPvLxO0DQjHNULO3c5fBg@mail.gmail.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1166496FE@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <CAHBDyN5XjRr5GM9zN4hrGOmO4DHsVYq7jo4C34QfO=KCALBKHw@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BA28C4@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11664B704@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BA30BB@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CAHBDyN7XwPd2vJuBSr3UMNBcd3qpM+ct0NVJpkgmmq1zFScg6g@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17BA3B73@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <CAHBDyN7ycwzWUoEa=-ijdvexQP8VY+SO=7No7OBjw-5uyNmq0Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN7ycwzWUoEa=-ijdvexQP8VY+SO=7No7OBjw-5uyNmq0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:51:32 -0700
To: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2013 16:51:31.0215 (UTC) FILETIME=[031879F0:01CEA4D8]
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt)
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: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:51:40 -0000

On Aug 29, 2013, at 8:11, "Mary Barnes" <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:

> [MB] So I missed the subtlety in Cullen's initial post that the expectation is that the decision whether or not to accept your draft is being made on a non-WG mailing list.  I don't think that's the right thing to do.   I can agree that folks on pntaw can make a recommendation to RTCWEB, but that needs to be fully documented and then the decision to adopt a document  for the WG deliverable should be made on the WG mailing list. Not everyone on the RTCWEB mailing list will subscribe to pntaw, so I can't see how a decision on behalf of the WG can be made on a non-WG mailing list. [/MB]

[BA] I can certainly understand the desire to create a space where NAT/Firewall issues can be discussed, free of the high volume of other traffic on the RTCWEB list. However, with respect to decisions, this seems more akin to a Design Team effort which is brought back to a WG than an autonomous group with its own decision making capability. Ultimately the recommendations developed on this list need to be supported in WebRTC implementations if they are to have meaning. RTCWEB WG is probably the best group to determine consensus for that.

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status