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

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Hutton, Andrew <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On: 28 August 2013 16:25 Mary Barnes wrote:
>
> >
> > 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?
> >
>
>
> This refers to the new "pntaw" mailing list and in a previous message
> Cullen Jennings stated:
>
[MB] I was aware of that, but I interpreted the "should be adopted" as more
of a recommendation from the non-WG mailing list as opposed to a binding
RTCWEB WG decision. [/MB]

>
> > Yes, I am asking that the discussion of how webrtc clients, proxies,
> > NATs and TURN servers interact is done on the  [e-mail] list.
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> The purpose of the pntaw mailing list as I see it is therefore is to allow
> us to come to a point when we can make a decision on how the solution to
> the issue of how webrtc browsers interact with web proxies, NAT/Firewalls
> and TURN servers and this includes deciding on whether to adopt
> draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations.
>

 [MB] So I missed the subtlety in Cullen's initial post that the
expectation is that the decision whether or not to accept your draft is
being made on a non-WG mailing list.  I don't think that's the right thing
to do.   I can agree that folks on pntaw can make a recommendation to
RTCWEB, but that needs to be fully documented and then the decision to
adopt a document  for the WG deliverable should be made on the WG mailing
list. Not everyone on the RTCWEB mailing list will subscribe to pntaw, so I
can't see how a decision on behalf of the WG can be made on a non-WG
mailing list. [/MB]

 There is of course some overlap here with other areas and wg's like SEC,
> behave, and httpbis so if the chairs and AD's think a new list is the way
> forward then ok but I hope the goal is to make a decision on what solution
> to adopt sometime soon.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>