Re: [rtcweb] Purpose of PNTAW list

"Hutton, Andrew" <> Fri, 30 August 2013 11:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE3311E80F2 for <>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.475
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cnE9D6f41Yk2 for <>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B8E11E80EA for <>; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 04:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Server) with ESMTP id 1AD5B23F0632; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 13:48:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 13:48:47 +0200
From: "Hutton, Andrew" <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Purpose of PNTAW list
Thread-Index: AQHOpUdip3yw+R+KLESeNusnNzuK9JmtnhnA
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:48:47 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Purpose of PNTAW list
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: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:48:57 -0000

One of the prime reasons for the PNTAW list was to discuss 

I might be being pedantic but this draft discusses the behavior of browsers in the presence of Web Proxies, Firewalls and TURN servers. It does not specify the behavior or propose any change to the behavior of anything other than the WebRTC browser so according to the definition below discussion should remain here. However I know that is not the intention of the chairs and I will move discussion on this draft to PNTAW.

Sorry to raise this again but I previously argued for keeping this draft in RTCWEB because it is all about WebRTC browser behavior and I still hope that it will one day be adopted as a RTCWEB WG draft.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
> Sent: 30 August 2013 07:09
> To:
> Subject: [rtcweb] Purpose of PNTAW list
> Greetings RTCWEB,
> As you have seen the chairs recently asked for the creation of a
> non-working group mailing list called "pntaw" (For "Proxies, NATs, TURN
> and webrtc").  The aim of that list is to enable folks involved in HTTP
> proxy development, NAT Traversal, and TURN to have a focused discussion
> on behavior of those systems in the presence of RTCWEB. Because we
> wanted an overlap with a different set of folks than are typically
> involved in RTCWEB (and because we occasionally have a flood of
> messages), we requested the separate list and topic area.
> It is not, however, planned to be a WG; if there is discussion there
> that results in the need for protocol work, it will go to an existing
> WG, possibly this one.
> So, when should you start discussing an issue there rather than here?
> If the primary purpose of a document is to describe or change the
> behavior of a proxy, NAT, or TURN server, it goes there.  If not, it
> stays here.  If a document currently mixes topic so that some
> discussion
> is in a document but it is not the documents primary purpose, please
> disucss with the chairs how to proceed.
> Hope that helps,
> Magnus Westerlund
> Ted Hardie
> Cullen Jennings
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list