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

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

I have a couple questions for clarification.  My understanding of the new
list is that it will provide a more targeted venue for these discussions
and allow folks that don't want their mailbox to be filled up with other
RTCWEB stuff to be engaged in the discussions (e.g., security and I would
think some of the BEHAVE guys).  Is that correct?   I'm assuming that since
this new list is a non-WG list that there are no binding decisions made in
that group, but rather any common agreements on that mailing list MUST be
vetted and any documents, etc MUST be approved in the RTCWEB WG. Is that
correct?

Thanks,
Mary.


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Hutton, Andrew <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Cullen,
>
> Just expressing my opinion that multiple mailing lists don't really help
> here but hopefully I will be proved wrong. The important thing is to make
> some progress.
>
> The plan we have ended up with was certainly not my first choice but I am
> happy that there is now a plan in place and we can move on.
>
> Regards
> Andy
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: 28 August 2013 15:35
> > To: Hutton, Andrew
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action:
> > draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt)
> >
> >
> > Andy,
> >
> > Lets review the history here. At the last IETF, the chairs blocked out
> > time to meet with you and we  talked about several ways forward and
> > asked what you wanted. You made it clear you were OK with this plan.
> > Given we went and did exactly what we discussed then after running it
> > by various ADs and others, why exactly are you complaining about this
> > now ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 28, 2013, at 4:11 AM, "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-
> > enterprise.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > Behalf Of Mary Barnes
> > > Sent: 27 August 2013 18:58
> > > To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > 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)
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Aug 27, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Mary Barnes
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:53 AM, [e-mail] 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  [e-mail].
> > >
> > > 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)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rtcweb mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>