From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: tram WG <tram@ietf.org>
Subject: WG Review: TURN Revised and Modernized (tram)
The TURN Revised and Modernized (tram) working group in the Transport
Area of the IETF is undergoing rechartering. The IESG has not made any
determination yet. The following draft charter was submitted, and is
provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to
the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2015-10-12.
TURN Revised and Modernized (tram)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Active WG
Chairs:
Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
Assigned Area Director:
Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Mailing list
Address: tram@ietf.org
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tram/
Charter:
Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) was published as RFC 5766 in
April 2010. For a few years, the protocol had seen rather limited
deployment. This is largely because its primary use case is as one
of the NAT traversal methods of the Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE) framework (RFC 5245), and ICE itself was slow
to achieve widespread adoption, as other mechanisms were already
being used by the VoIP industry. This situation has changed
drastically as ICE, and consequently TURN, are mandatory to implement
in WebRTC, a set of technologies developed at the IETF and W3C to
standardize Real Time Communication on the Web.
Together with the arrival of WebRTC, there is a renewed interest in
TURN and ICE, as evidenced by recent work updating the ICE framework
(still in progress), and standardizing the URIs used to access a STUN
(RFC 7064) or TURN (RFC 7065) server.
The goal of the TRAM Working Group is to consolidate the various
initiatives to update TURN and STUN to make them more suitable for
the WebRTC environment. The work will include authentication mechanisms,
a path MTU discovery mechanism, an IP address mobility solution for
TURN, and extensions to TURN and STUN. The Working Group will closely
coordinate with the appropriate Working Groups, including RTCWEB, MMUSIC,
and HTTPBIS.
In developing upgrades to TURN, the group will consider the passive
monitoring risks introduced by the centralization of call traffic
through a TURN server. When such risks arise, they will recommend
appropriate mitigations. For example, a mechanism for directing traffic
to a TURN server other than one configured by the application could be
used to direct calls through a TURN server configured to do monitoring.
When such a mechanism is used, it is important that the endpoints to the
call apply end-to-end encryption and authentication to ensure that they
are protected from the TURN server.
Milestones:
WG action announcement
WG Action Announcement
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: tram-chairs@ietf.org,
tram@ietf.org,
"The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: WG Action: Rechartered TURN Revised and Modernized (tram)
The TURN Revised and Modernized (tram) working group in the Transport
Area of the IETF has been rechartered. For additional information please
contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.
TURN Revised and Modernized (tram)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Active WG
Chairs:
Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
Assigned Area Director:
Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Mailing list
Address: tram@ietf.org
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tram/
Charter:
Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) was published as RFC 5766 in
April 2010. For a few years, the protocol had seen rather limited
deployment. This is largely because its primary use case is as one
of the NAT traversal methods of the Interactive Connectivity
Establishment (ICE) framework (RFC 5245), and ICE itself was slow
to achieve widespread adoption, as other mechanisms were already
being used by the VoIP industry. This situation has changed
drastically as ICE, and consequently TURN, are mandatory to implement
in WebRTC, a set of technologies developed at the IETF and W3C to
standardize Real Time Communication on the Web.
Together with the arrival of WebRTC, there is a renewed interest in
TURN and ICE, as evidenced by recent work updating the ICE framework
(still in progress), and standardizing the URIs used to access a STUN
(RFC 7064) or TURN (RFC 7065) server.
The goal of the TRAM Working Group is to consolidate the various
initiatives to update TURN and STUN to make them more suitable for
NAT traversal in a variety of environments, whether for realtime
media establishment protocols such as the Offer-Answer Session
Description Protocol (RFC 3264), XMPP (XEP-0176), RTSP
(draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat), and RTCWeb (draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep),
or for non-realtime protocols such as HIP (RFC 5770) and RELOAD
(RFC 6940). The work will include authentication mechanisms,
a path MTU discovery mechanism, an IP address mobility solution for
TURN, and extensions to TURN and STUN. The Working Group will closely
coordinate with the appropriate Working Groups, including ICE, RTCWEB,
MMUSIC, and HTTPBIS.
In developing upgrades to TURN, the group will consider the passive
monitoring risks introduced by the centralization of call traffic
through a TURN server. When such risks arise, they will recommend
appropriate mitigations. For example, a mechanism for directing traffic
to a TURN server other than one configured by the application could be
used to direct calls through a TURN server configured to do monitoring.
When such a mechanism is used, it is important that the endpoints to the
call apply end-to-end encryption and authentication to ensure that they
are protected from the TURN server.
Milestones:
Nov 2015 - Send new TURN server discovery mechanism for enterprises and
ISPs to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard
Nov 2015 - Send path characteristic measurement mechanism to IESG for
publication as Proposed Standard
Nov 2015 - Adopt TURN PMTUD draft
Nov 2015 - Adopt TURN IP address mobility draft
Jan 2016 - Send STUN-bis draft to IESG for publication as Proposed
Standard
Jan 2016 - Send TURN-bis draft to IESG for publication as Proposed
Standard
Mar 2016 - Send new authentication mechanism(s) to IESG for publication
as Proposed Standard
Mar 2016 - Submit TURN PMTUD draft to IESG
Jul 2016 - Submit TURN IP address mobility draft to IESG
Ballot announcement
Ballot Announcement
Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
Review, on what date was the request posted?
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'
RFC Editor Note
(Insert RFC Editor Note here or remove section)
IRTF Note
(Insert IRTF Note here or remove section)
IESG Note
(Insert IESG Note here or remove section)
IANA Note
(Insert IANA Note here or remove section)