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

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:fluffy@cisco.com]
> Sent: 28 August 2013 15:35
> To: Hutton, Andrew
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> 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: 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> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 27, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Mary Barnes
> <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:53 AM, 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.orglist.
> >
> > 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
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb