IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] Errata on RFC 5764 : Errata ID: 3913

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 02 May 2014 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101AF1A08FD for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 May 2014 10:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24CTS411G6Z7 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 May 2014 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x230.google.com (mail-we0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8398B1A08DA for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 May 2014 10:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id q59so2404097wes.7 for <avt@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 May 2014 10:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=KYbB6YSh59nljnSwaFaNQaV3fSjG3Tr/Br8GMu0jiBc=; b=M54kLQhXTpuATUheUyuyVwv4Vw3p1ttmYUNQC4H2Ox9mudgZ/LpR0bibRqmA1duciG 8lN1tdbr3oAZm+nzD36Jo639avdwlgS2F4CgguhA6v/72sQmYKlWbH7diPwH3dUQ6eF/ BM7Am3XZZ7e19dzwRF42GPXCA2yU39k52ZIyOHdjhV6fjETbdF67zgnK7TBhT/5cgg1U zm+U5grxizfBtf5qVSk0IKM465pHMvrf1JjFi3zaKWgNpnN2kmhw1rEi3sFuUMQnl/ah rlBpZfKVJvNPzJIDSXoC2Vje+c5ATkF328TPVBHfSPepSASqpfjmXhb2r93Xbx+Tlvf5 0vqQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.82.133 with SMTP id i5mr3901758wiy.50.1399050626703; Fri, 02 May 2014 10:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.77.10 with HTTP; Fri, 2 May 2014 10:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <536356B3.8010000@ericsson.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D2E53A6@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABkgnnWK0jtXy1hAd7n2gEj6+ifdksZyT7QgNwqB0nje1Y4SpQ@mail.gmail.com> <536356B3.8010000@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 10:10:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUaiXi4jzNGdOodaPVZUPH09Vy3TzxObiRzq46XGtRwYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/E6ugbLF8pvOIVqP9mq-EUWAE_zk
Cc: "avt@ietf.org" <avt@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] Errata on RFC 5764 : Errata ID: 3913
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 17:10:31 -0000

On 2 May 2014 01:26, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 1. To any in the WG: Do you really think there is an issue of
> restricting STUN to 128 methods per class per existing RFC?

This is an alternative to what I proposed, which would leave 5764
alone.  You need to make some allowance for this though:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/stun-parameters/stun-parameters.xhtml#stun-parameters-2
 (Note the range 0x800-0xFFF, which is currently unused)

> 2. To Martin: What made you think there was an error in RFC 5764?

This:

> Formally this is a value overlap between what STUN could potentially use
> (0-63) and what DTLS can potentially use 20-63.

I don't think that it's quite fair to say that it's a fault of STUN.
STUN was there first, so arguably the fault lies with RFC 5764.

As I said, it's a minor issue.  There doesn't seem to be any need for
the overlap, so it's probably safe to retroactively change the rules
for STUN method registrations.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email