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

I am not convinced that moving the work to another mailing list is really useful I think it just creates confusion and probably there will be a lot of cross post between RTCWEB and PNTAW.

But if it gets things moving then I am ok with it.

What I would ask is that the chairs post a mail to RTCWEB and PNTAW which clearly describes the purpose of the new mailing list.

Regards
Andy

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mary Barnes
Sent: 27 August 2013 18:58
To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt)

Thanks for the clarification.  Your last point explains the logic to me and I do agree.

Mary.

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com<mailto:fluffy@cisco.com>> wrote:

On Aug 27, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com<mailto:mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com<mailto:fluffy@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:53 AM, markus.isomaki@nokia.com<mailto:markus.isomaki@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would support the adoption of the NAT and Firewall considerations (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-01) as a WG document. Or to be more precise, I very much agree with the requirements summarized in Section 5. Especially this one seems important to me:
> >
> > o  connect to a TURN server via a HTTP proxy using the HTTP connect
> >       method,
> >
> > If we want WebRTC to work from many corporate networks I'm aware of, it would not be possible without this as a fallback capability.
> >
> > Markus
> >
> >
>
> Have you tried if this work with your corporate firewalls? We are trying to get more information about that and info about if the TURN server needs to run on the TURN port or port 443.
>
> Thanks, Cullen with my co chair hat on. PS - Real Soon Now we are going to ask people to move this diction to a separate list so that others can follow it without having to wade through all the rtcweb traffic.
> [MB] I'm slightly puzzled by this suggestion.  Are you suggesting that any discussion of the hutton rtcweb draft (which is being proposed as WG item should be on a separate mailing list?  Or are you referring to more general discussions or are you considering this to be a more WebRTC discussion?   There's not been at all a huge amount of discussion on this RTCWEB mailing list that I find it to be overload. I personally find the cross postings to the W3C list and this mailing list to generate a whole lot of extra email in my mailbox. [/MB]
>
Yes, I am asking that the discussion of how webrtc clients, proxies, NATs and TURN servers interact is done on the  pntaw@ietf.org<mailto:pntaw@ietf.org> list.

You can go here to sign up at:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pntaw

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.

Thanks. Cullen (with my co-chair hat on)