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

Mary Barnes <> Thu, 29 August 2013 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D6921F9BC1 for <>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:10:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.417
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.182, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JqN-iXAG0410 for <>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22c]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99D811E811A for <>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 5so268133qeb.17 for <>; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:08:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=6YFh/mjAm3btTGd55eRSgqvyPVXsUZkIy6LAgR61dWo=; b=Q3re0Q2HN60K18p8C6uIZlHFfJBcVAql1sznsSHmNQDOW25z+e6RBjVg7x+dCsDBRf G0JQQ6kfshxOmHQ+SqVU+hGABa55ixTIMRdb+XqajvuVO6T23no6Ip302tdllBa9xI22 bKW2838szY34aymE4US+ZcbzVUJkb3rwTQQ1jOp/uZ5VeGJdXd/8Vh4XDR6Ar49/upvm ZQ3IhLtrq68lKHbKTJz6pYwGBPrkrR0L2P+r5aSVcLdmTCulx0/MuT7E50ASIxPJkwgp YJ6x6tbznleIF4+rlXiSxLbnY3IGhg6C5bC1WUfUZQgPBMHZR7Pztqe+CmTI+HF0+d5j u50w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id x8mr5348041qae.57.1377788935850; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:08:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:08:55 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Mary Barnes <>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bf0ec2218ce3304e5177c59"
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] NAT/Firewall considerations (RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-00.txt)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:10:21 -0000

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Hutton, Andrew <> 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 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