Subject: [rtcweb] Purpose of PNTAW list

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:09:01 +0200

Greetings RTCWEB,

As you have seen the chairs recently asked for the creation of a
non-working group mailing list called "pntaw" (For "Proxies, NATs, TURN
and webrtc").  The aim of that list is to enable folks involved in HTTP
proxy development, NAT Traversal, and TURN to have a focused discussion
on behavior of those systems in the presence of RTCWEB. Because we
wanted an overlap with a different set of folks than are typically
involved in RTCWEB (and because we occasionally have a flood of
messages), we requested the separate list and topic area.

It is not, however, planned to be a WG; if there is discussion there
that results in the need for protocol work, it will go to an existing
WG, possibly this one.

So, when should you start discussing an issue there rather than here?
If the primary purpose of a document is to describe or change the
behavior of a proxy, NAT, or TURN server, it goes there.  If not, it
stays here.  If a document currently mixes topic so that some discussion
is in a document but it is not the documents primary purpose, please
disucss with the chairs how to proceed.

Hope that helps,

Magnus Westerlund
Ted Hardie
Cullen Jennings

---

From: "Hutton, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:48:47 +0000

One of the prime reasons for the PNTAW list was to discuss http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-01. 

I might be being pedantic but this draft discusses the behavior of browsers in the presence of Web Proxies, Firewalls and TURN servers. It does not specify the behavior or propose any change to the behavior of anything other than the WebRTC browser so according to the definition below discussion should remain here. However I know that is not the intention of the chairs and I will move discussion on this draft to PNTAW.

Sorry to raise this again but I previously argued for keeping this draft in RTCWEB because it is all about WebRTC browser behavior and I still hope that it will one day be adopted as a RTCWEB WG draft.

Regards
Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
> Sent: 30 August 2013 07:09
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [rtcweb] Purpose of PNTAW list
> 
> Greetings RTCWEB,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb