Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87

So section 3.3.1 of draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations provides a brief sketch of an extension to TURN clients to use a HTTP proxy. 

I would be shocked to see anyone in this WG tell you not to do that, it's been discussed many times in the past. But in the end this WG will either say we like it, take it to BEHAVE, or it will say we hate it in which case as and individual draft you will still probably take it to BEHAVE. You probably want to keep an eye on HTTP2 stuff and implications to this too. 

We had not much list discussion on this draft. We have an agenda very full of WG items that are very controversial. We could put it at the end of the agenda with "time permitting" but to be honest, I sort of doubt we would get to it. Is there some question you think you want feedback from this group on that we could start on this list or something? 

I'm just trying to be realistic about the outcomes of this draft - we could discuss it in RTCWeb for 3 meetings before proposing a  TURN extension in behave but in the end I suspect we could just short circuit all that. 

On Jul 12, 2013, at 8:17 AM, "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> wrote:

> What we want to discuss is a solution to the HTTP (Proxy) only FW use case as described in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11#section-3.2.3. This is not solved by the current specs. 
> 
> The draft http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-01 proposes a solution based on using HTTP Connect and some other related browser best practice requirements but also discusses alternatives.
> 
> We want to discuss solving this use case and hopefully get this draft adopted.
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [mailto:fluffy@cisco.com]
>> Sent: 12 July 2013 16:09
>> To: Hutton, Andrew
>> Cc: Ted Hardie; rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Draft agenda for IETF 87 - FW Issues
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb