IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> Fri, 12 July 2013 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.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 D6A6921F9E4E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 02:01:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 64rhNvzMp2tQ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 02:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD0221F98AD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 02:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.234]) by senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id 3BB3723F05D8; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:01:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.137]) by MCHP01HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.234]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:01:05 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues
Thread-Index: AQHOflbuioJxfw6BTUiF3V93e/1K7plguuEQ
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:01:05 +0000
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF116406C8@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <CA+9kkMBuCTdFsUMtmuBz6BnrSJMpHywEZU+x+m8ARnGprvzDzA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBuCTdFsUMtmuBz6BnrSJMpHywEZU+x+m8ARnGprvzDzA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF116406C8MCHP04MSXglobal_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
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 09:01:25 -0000

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