Re: [tram] TRAM rechartering

+1

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) <
gsalguei@cisco.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> -G
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 2015, at 11:50 AM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <
> tireddy@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> > I support both the work items.
> >
> > -Tiru
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: tram [mailto:tram-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault
> >> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 6:42 AM
> >> To: tram@ietf.org
> >> Subject: [tram] TRAM rechartering
> >>
> >> TRAMsters,
> >>
> >> We would like to get some feedback on a proposed rechartering. The goal
> is
> >> to be able to explicitly describe some new work that would be taken on
> by
> >> the working group.
> >>
> >> The two drafts considered are:
> >>
> >> - draft-petithuguenin-tram-stun-pmtud-01
> >> - draft-wing-tram-turn-mobility-03
> >>
> >> Charter proposal follows. Diff attached. As you'll see the changes are
> very
> >> minimal. If the new charter is adopted then corresponding milestones
> will be
> >> created.
> >>
> >> The question we are asking is: are these two new work items things that
> you
> >> want to be working on? The PMTUD draft was presented in Prague and the
> >> consensus seemed to be positive. As for the mobility draft, it has been
> active
> >> for a long time and now we are asking the TRAMsters directly if they
> want to
> >> work on it.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Simon & Gonzalo
> >>
> >>
> >>> Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) was published as RFC 5766 in
> >>> April 2010. Until recently the protocol had seen rather limited
> >>> deployment. This is largely because its primary use case is as one of
> >>> the NAT traversal methods of the Interactive Connectivity
> >>> Establishment (ICE) framework (RFC 5245), and ICE itself was slow to
> >>> achieve widespread adoption, as other mechanisms were already being
> >>> used by the VoIP industry. This situation has changed drastically as
> >>> ICE, and consequently TURN, are mandatory to implement in WebRTC, a
> >>> set of technologies developed at the IETF and W3C to standardize Real
> >>> Time Communication on the Web.
> >>>
> >>> Together with the arrival of WebRTC, there is a renewed interest in
> >>> TURN and ICE, as evidenced by recent work updating the ICE framework
> >>> (still in progress), and standardizing the URIs used to access a STUN
> >>> (RFC 7064) or TURN (RFC 7065) server.
> >>>
> >>> The goal of the TRAM Working Group is to consolidate the various
> >>> initiatives to update TURN and STUN to make them more suitable for the
> >>> WebRTC environment. The work will include authentication mechanisms, a
> >>> path MTU discovery mechanism, an IP address mobility solution for
> >>> TURN, and extensions to TURN and STUN. The Working Group will closely
> >>> coordinate with the appropriate Working Groups, including RTCWEB,
> >>> MMUSIC, and HTTPBIS.
> >>>
> >>> In developing upgrades to TURN, the group will consider the passive
> >>> monitoring risks introduced by the centralization of call traffic
> >>> through a TURN server. When such risks arise, they will recommend
> >>> appropriate mitigations. For example, a mechanism for directing
> >>> traffic to a TURN server other than one configured by the application
> >>> could be used to direct calls through a TURN server configured to do
> >> monitoring.
> >>> When such a mechanism is used, it is important that the endpoints to
> >>> the call apply end-to-end encryption and authentication to ensure that
> >>> they are protected from the TURN server.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tram mailing list
> > tram@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>