Re: [tram] TRAM rechartering

+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