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
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.