Re: [rtcweb] NAT Draft

Hadriel Kaplan <> Fri, 04 November 2011 01:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE4A11E80AE for <>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.47
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.872, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_VISITOURSITE=2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DGLyiMIXtbdj for <>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FFFB11E8089 for <>; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 18:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 21:59:16 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 3 Nov 2011 21:59:15 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <>
To: "Bran, Cary" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] NAT Draft
Thread-Index: AQHMmpVay12ir971zEWuAtTil5VTkA==
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 01:59:14 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F0ED21943C0044099B11116419AEA5D3acmepacketcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAWE=
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT Draft
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, 04 Nov 2011 01:59:19 -0000

I've read the draft and I do think some consensus has been reached with regard to some of it.

Having said that, though, I don't think this needs to be a WG document because that implies we would be publishing this as an RFC eventually... and I don't see a need to do that.

We should instead incorporate any requirements we reach WG consensus on into the draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements WG document; or if we feel that that document is meant for high-level requirements only, then we should create a new WG document that covers all the specific requirements.

Having separate individual drafts is ok for now, but having a separate WG doc and RFC for every requirement sub-category seems unnecessary to me, and likely to cause confusion.  It's not like we would expect to only satisfy the requirements of RFC X but not Y, is it?

[note: We might have separate RFCs if we plan a phase-1 and phase-2 approach for W3C and browsers, but this NAT one isn't in that type of situation.  And we might have a separate RFC for requirements for new protocol work, such as a data-transport one if we need the Transport Area to create a new transport, but this NAT one isn't that type of situation either.]


On Oct 31, 2011, at 6:23 PM, Bran, Cary wrote:

Hello WebRTC chairs,

I have updated and submitted a 02 version of the WebRTC NAT draft:

I believe that this draft is representative of areas where the working group has achieved consensus and at this time I would like to ask that the 02 draft be adopted as a working group document.

I look forward to your feedback.


Cary Bran
Senior Director Advanced Software Technology and Architecture
Office:  +1 831-458-7737     Cell: +1 206-661-2398
Plantronics  Simply Smarter Communications™
345 Encinal St., Santa Cruz, CA 95060


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, please DO NOT disclose the contents to another person, store or copy the information in any medium, or use any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission for any purpose. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply email or at<>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.

For further information about Plantronics - the Company, its products, brands, partners, please visit our website<>;.
rtcweb mailing list<>