Re: [midcom] Re: Status of TURN
Cullen Jennings <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mmusic,gmane.ietf.midcom |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <BBDEACEB.24FD8%[email protected]> |
If people have specific technical issues about the security of TURN that are not documented in the current draft - it would be really nice to know about them. I always hear there are some but I never seem to hear what exactly they are. I do understand Melinda's general concerns on if media relays should be done at all no matter how they are done. Thanks Cullen On 10/21/03 10:14 PM, "Pete Cordell" <[email protected]> wrote: > What you say Christian is technically absolutely correct. > > However this communities appetite for implementing and labelling their > products with even -00 draft material suggests to me that many implementers > (and probably their customers) are not bothered by these subtleties of IETF > process. > > Certainly it would help to know whether informational or proposed standard > is > being sought for this draft. > > Pete. > > ============================================= > Pete Cordell > +44 1473 635863 > ============================================= > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christian Huitema" <[email protected]> > To: "Pete Cordell" <[email protected]>; "Melinda Shore" > <[email protected]> > Cc: "Jonathan Rosenberg" <[email protected]>; "Peterson, Jon" > <[email protected]>; "Mmusic" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: 20 October 2003 20:27 > Subject: RE: [midcom] Re: [MMUSIC] Status of TURN > > > Individual submissions are a well established part of the process, and > should be considered a fine way to make progress when a working group > would not. There is a catch, however. Individual contributions are very > seldom published as proposed standards -- they normally end up as either > experimental or informational. The criteria for publishing something as > informational ought to be, demonstration of at least some significant > interest in the community -- but not necessarily demonstration of > consensus. The bar for refusing publication in the presence of enough > interest has to be somewhat high -- basically, the group has to be > convinced that implementing the proposal as is would damage the > Internet. > > Obviously, publication as a proposed standard would require the > equivalent of WG consensus. I don't believe there is such consensus on > TURN. > > -- Christian Huitema > > _______________________________________________ > mmusic mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic > > > _______________________________________________ > midcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom >