Re: [rtcweb] Draft minutes for day two, IETF 87

"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Thu, 22 August 2013 18:27 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 113A721F99F4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.491
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, 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 igq3LAcH0K5y for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B818A21F85D1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2129; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1377196067; x=1378405667; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=5g7dG4CGJAj6ctD1cBGf1mCsLrCYeD8CrFl7MGPqQpk=; b=ZNVkymHl5v8IWJx4izokU5Dd1oW8RD1IIX+F4HvysAaj9cVVqM8liPwx B6/u5DuYGtCGSeA5W5eRTYZ+Q4NtqWMDvSOzc9gaYlwTd90ncRSShb+T3 Nji8f2qaFjPEdpXQE+wSs5YNyZcQA7fZi3NpRGAVGmX8RM4owRmYj8Xvv w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai0FAA9XFlKtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABagwc1UcAIgR0WdIIkAQEBAwEBAQFrCwULAgEIEQQBAQsdBycLFAkIAgQOBQiIAgYMtnWQMwIxB4MbewOZE5Atgx+CKw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,935,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="250608658"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Aug 2013 18:27:47 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7MIRl9S005101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:27:47 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.221]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:27:46 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Draft minutes for day two, IETF 87
Thread-Index: AQHOn2VM/MgSoI4J10OhtYu7sim3FQ==
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:27:46 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB114920345@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBKQXP3Ve+OTYbrd2WTAf_H893qJr-aMGuL9GCYE5AJpw@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17B9AE85@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF17B9AE85@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.20.249.164]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <29CA16358FDACC47AE394668BDDB901F@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Draft minutes for day two, IETF 87
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, 22 Aug 2013 18:27:58 -0000

On Aug 22, 2013, at 4:02 AM, "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> wrote:

> With regard to the following entry in the minutes.
> 
> "Andy Hutton:  Need to complete use cases and requirements.  My understanding is that the entire WG can't be done until we have met the requirements.  Don't disagree with the 70 percent estimate. 
> Cullen:  The WG doesn't need to meet its requirements, it needs to decide which ones it will meet and when." 
> 
> This does not fully reflect the point I made which was that the requirements document needs to be completed and then we can review how complete we are against the requirements. If there are requirements that are not to be addressed at this point then this should be a decision made by the working group.

Thanks - we will update to reflect that was your comment.

> 
> I also stated that I believe http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations should be on the list of RTCWeb related drafts.

On a side note about that …  we are working on getting a mailing list formed for discussion of that as it involves security and apps too and will that discussion moving along once we get the mailing list. We'll keep treating it as an individual contribution to the rtcweb WG. 

> This is because it is currently the only draft that addresses the firewall related requirements in the use case and requirements drafts.
> 
> Regards
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
> Sent: 14 August 2013 19:55
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: [rtcweb] Draft minutes for day two, IETF 87
> 
> We're splitting up the minutes review for the two different days of the last IETF meeting.  Please review and send corrections to the list.  Many thanks to Bernard Aboba and Suhas Nandakumar for their excellent notes.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb