[00:45:06] Cullen joins the room [01:00:51] sob joins the room [01:01:09] I'll forward to the mic if requested [01:01:34] Thanks Scott [01:01:49] are you getting the audio OK [01:01:55] Any rough estimate of the number of people in the real room? [01:01:59] Yes, audio is good [01:02:17] 27 [01:02:50] a few more wandering in [01:27:15] ꈲ joins the room [02:12:03] hta joins the room [02:13:34] Cullen, is the peer-to-peer layer of this effort at all relevant to the RTC-Web effort? [02:14:48] Probably not but I'v been keeping my eyes open to see where it goes and see there starts to be more of a connection [02:16:21] I'm seeing some tendency towards a common need to do NAT traversal with protocols that don't map obviously to UDP semantics, and I don't see a convergence on what's best to use yet. [02:17:39] .. or any sign that fully documented approaches exist. [02:18:15] The nat traversal that is good is not easy, and the stuff that easy is not good [02:19:34] ... but is either fully specified and referenceable? (I'm starting to treat ICE/UDP, with all its complexity, as a given) [02:20:16] We are having the how to do NAT traversal discussion in many WG. It might be nice to have a general transport protocol done by transport. [02:20:49] something that has been talked about for a very long time [02:21:14] A big part of the problem with ICE is the write up of it enough to make your head explode. The actually protocol is not all bad if someone explains it to you on a whiteboarrd but it is very hard to understand reading the RFC. [02:21:29] tried to do it years ago but not everyone in the IESG at the time was all that fond of NAT [02:21:29] I'd settle for just "done", but a lot of policy/process angst would be avoided if it was done "by transport". [02:21:48] h [02:22:11] cullen: the protocol including all the warts is grotty, but the principles are simple enough. [02:22:52] Yep - and I think this has been studied enough that pretty much any solution is going to look about the same at the principle level [02:22:53] I'm certainly not going to make RTC-Web dependent on solving this issue if I can avoid it :-) [02:23:31] +1 :-) [02:24:40] current comments at the mic are part of the too common IETF management view [02:24:40] ******** GROAN *********** [02:28:04] And to think, I was just going to ask about all the WG doing forms of V6 NATs :-) [02:28:36] Which slide number are we on now? [02:28:57] no numbers on teh slide [02:29:00] I don't see a number. Overview of Proposal (continued) is the title. [02:29:18] 1st bullet protocol for exchanging [02:29:24] thanks - got it [02:29:31] We need a protocol that's simple and elegant in a NAT-free IPv6 network, and survives on the current Internet. Next topic, please. [02:29:42] [02:42:02] Did you get any feel of how many people had read it ? [02:42:15] close to 0 [02:45:36] thanks [02:53:35] duan.chen joins the room [03:03:47] denver.chen joins the room [03:05:05] duan.chen leaves the room [03:14:20] hta leaves the room [03:23:52] hta joins the room [03:25:42] sob leaves the room [03:27:43] Thanks you all [03:27:45] Cullen leaves the room [03:38:05] ꈲ leaves the room [03:44:22] denver.chen leaves the room [04:01:35] hta leaves the room [04:10:05] ꈲ joins the room [04:47:09] ꈲ leaves the room [11:32:29] hta joins the room [11:33:03] hta leaves the room