Re: [tram] TRAM rechartering

The mobility draft is a solid document  for mobile networks and working on is a good idea.

Oleg

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 11, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> <diff.html>
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram