Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues
"Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com> Fri, 12 July 2013 15:17 UTC
Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81DB521F9A29 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4W7DpA5HUBKe for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEF4A21F9F7B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 08:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2495; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373642217; x=1374851817; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=O1a1jQE89ico0uCdhOD3COQnBukGmlEDGMnIXthWldE=; b=GB6mPRfd6KNAJxjVYRTD0hQZ5jQ6XNh/uLFSgnqADEUOj+3Hviw8ytnw 2oks33fUo1YYGNC0KlaDSXVWBiAkpJiL8MH+h2+0Db3oq+CcTWoX6Cwyk wEufG6xj5dstv3n7Sm0eugKDMYzChs2eQ61l9AFsb4ucGyT221djI4ufl 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AngHAM4c4FGtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABagwZ3AQEKwVGBCRZ0giMBAQEDAXkQAgEIEQQBAQEKHQcyFAkIAgQOBQgTh24Gt1qPLgIxB4MLbAOpKYMSgig
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,653,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="234167028"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2013 15:16:47 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6CFGlsX007822 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:16:47 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.116]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:16:47 -0500
From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues
Thread-Index: AQHOft5ZQ5814mmC5UeNtbOepqDdYA==
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:16:46 +0000
Message-ID: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB1135D6E20@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBuCTdFsUMtmuBz6BnrSJMpHywEZU+x+m8ARnGprvzDzA@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF116406C8@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net> <1EABABEB-CDCB-4D66-B201-AA19DA33407E@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1EABABEB-CDCB-4D66-B201-AA19DA33407E@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.76.68]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <785EC896A38A3F48B4C2F44E5E19CAFD@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:17:02 -0000
Andy, sorry … ignore this. I see you provided what I was asking for on another thread. On Jul 12, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> wrote: > > Can you get specific about exactly what you want to discuss? The current solution ins the specs uses ICE, STUN, TURN and works thorough many firewalls but not all. What change would you like to see? > > On Jul 12, 2013, at 2:01 AM, "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> > wrote: > >> Regarding the FW traversal discussion then I still think we need a discussion in the RTCWEB WG and I hope to persuade the chairs that this is the case. >> >> We have requirements in the use case draft and charter items that need solutions and this is a real issue impacting RTCWeb trials today. >> >> Regards >> Andy >> >> >> >> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie >> Sent: 11 July 2013 17:51 >> To: rtcweb@ietf.org >> Cc: Cullen Jennings >> Subject: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 >> >> Greetings, >> >> Below is an initial draft agenda for the upcoming meeting. Since we have not yet reached the draft deadline (which is the 15th), there may be new drafts or updates that result in changes. We did already receive requests for NAT/Firewall traversal discussion, and the chairs will be working with the document authors to get them considered in the appropriate groups. >> >> As folks have probably noticed, we are meeting Thursday and Friday, after the MMUSIC sessions are complete (they are Tuesday and Wednesday). This should allow us to discuss the results on our first day. >> >> Please send feedback or change proposals to the list. >> >> thanks, >> >> Ted and Cullen >> >> Day 1: >> >> Should SDES be part of WebRTC security practice and, if so, how? >> Presentations: 30 minutes >> Discussion: 40 minutes >> >> Post-Plan A/Plan B MMUSIC discussion of impact to RTCWEB documents >> Presentation: 30 minutes >> Discussion: 30 minutes >> >> Security document updates >> Presentation: 10 minutes >> Discussion: 10 minutes >> >> Day 2: >> >> Chair Discussion: 10 minutes >> >> Use Case Requirements updates: >> Issues list presentation: 20 minutes >> Discussion: 20 minutes >> >> Data channel: >> Issues list presentation: 45 minutes >> Discussion: 45 minutes >> >> >
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Mary Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Hadriel Kaplan
- [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES Stefan Håkansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES Hrishikesh Kulkarni
- Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES Salvatore Loreto
- Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)
- Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] A compromise for SDES Cullen Jennings