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

"Hutton, Andrew" <> Thu, 29 August 2013 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 710E411E8108 for <>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 02:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WM1abIO1uQjf for <>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 02:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0547111E810A for <>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 02:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Server) with ESMTP id D971423F0742; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:32:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:32:15 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <>
To: Mary Barnes <>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt)
Thread-Index: AQHOpAK9LYFwFhkUWEKOLfFTcbhtS5mr5YGA
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:32:14 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:32:25 -0000

On: 28 August 2013 16:25 Mary Barnes wrote:

> I have a couple questions for clarification.  My understanding of the
> new list is that it will provide a more targeted venue for these
> discussions and allow folks that don't want their mailbox to be filled
> up with other RTCWEB stuff to be engaged in the discussions (e.g.,
> security and I would think some of the BEHAVE guys).  Is that correct?
>   I'm assuming that since this new list is a non-WG list that there are
> no binding decisions made in that group, but rather any common
> agreements on that mailing list MUST be vetted and any documents, etc
> MUST be approved in the RTCWEB WG. Is that correct?

This refers to the new "pntaw" mailing list and in a previous message Cullen Jennings stated: 

> Yes, I am asking that the discussion of how webrtc clients, proxies,
> NATs and TURN servers interact is done on the list.
> 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.

The purpose of the pntaw mailing list as I see it is therefore is to allow us to come to a point when we can make a decision on how the solution to the issue of how webrtc browsers interact with web proxies, NAT/Firewalls and TURN servers and this includes deciding on whether to adopt draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations.

There is of course some overlap here with other areas and wg's like SEC, behave, and httpbis so if the chairs and AD's think a new list is the way forward then ok but I hope the goal is to make a decision on what solution to adopt sometime soon.