Subject: [tram] BoF approved

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:31:32 -0500

All,

FYI, the TRAM BoF has been approved.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:14:48 -0600

Dear TRAMsters,

> FYI, the TRAM BoF has been approved.

And, actually, more than that ... the guidance I got on the BOF 
coordination call (IESG + IAB) was that we didn't need to do a formal 
BOF for relatively minor extensions of an IETF standards-track protocol, 
so "propose a charter without a BOF".

You will doubtless see future references to "TRAM BoF", because the 
normal practice at this point is to approve a BOF *slot* at the meeting, 
so there's a room request, conflict list, and such things in place for 
the agenda conflict review (which happens tomorrow), so that whether we 
finish chartering before IETF 89 or not, TRAM will be meeting.

So, I'm starting to get questions from other ADs who are looking at the 
draft charter. Let me check with you on feedback I've gotten thus far.

In this text:

> The goal of the TRAM Working Group is to consolidate the various 
> initiatives to update TURN and STUN, including the definition of new 
> transport, authentication mechanisms, and extensions, that make STUN 
> and TURN more suitable for the WebRTC environment.

what kind of "new transport" are we talking about? I think I know, but 
could someone give me an example?

Thanks!

Spencer

---

From: Oleg Moskalenko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 09:57:01 -0800

I am pretty much sure that the "new transport" in this particular case
means "DTLS". That's a natural extension for the TURN.

Oleg

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Spencer Dawkins <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> coordination call (IESG + IAB) was that we didn't need to do a formal BOF
> for relatively minor extensions of an IETF standards-track protocol, so
> "propose a charter without a BOF".
>
> You will doubtless see future references to "TRAM BoF", because the normal
> practice at this point is to approve a BOF *slot* at the meeting, so
> there's a room request, conflict list, and such things in place for the
> agenda conflict review (which happens tomorrow), so that whether we finish
> chartering before IETF 89 or not, TRAM will be meeting.
>
> transport, authentication mechanisms, and extensions, that make STUN and
> TURN more suitable for the WebRTC environment.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>
>

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:35:53 -0500

> means "DTLS". That's a natural extension for the TURN.

Correct.

Simon

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:05:18 -0600

>> means "DTLS". That's a natural extension for the TURN.

Thank you both for the quick response.

I LOVE it when I guess right :-)

Spencer