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

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Mon, 05 May 2014 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.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 EAE821A0266 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 May 2014 23:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 jJKVgyl4Bcsa for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 4 May 2014 23:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B56F91A0164 for <avt@ietf.org>; Sun, 4 May 2014 23:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79106d0000013ca-18-53673294c9b3
Received: from ESESSHC004.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 0B.0C.05066.49237635; Mon, 5 May 2014 08:41:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.174.1; Mon, 5 May 2014 08:41:24 +0200
Message-ID: <53673293.7030700@ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 08:41:23 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D2E53A6@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABkgnnWK0jtXy1hAd7n2gEj6+ifdksZyT7QgNwqB0nje1Y4SpQ@mail.gmail.com> <536356B3.8010000@ericsson.com> <CABkgnnUaiXi4jzNGdOodaPVZUPH09Vy3TzxObiRzq46XGtRwYA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUaiXi4jzNGdOodaPVZUPH09Vy3TzxObiRzq46XGtRwYA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrELMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje4Uo/Rgg/kXjS1e9qxkt7h25h+j A5PHzll32T2WLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJWxZs8jxoJtghXvDu9na2D8ztvFyMkhIWAi cfXAKzYIW0ziwr31QDYXh5DAUUaJObfaGCGcZYwS/34uZgap4hXQljj+vh/MZhFQkZj/ZDYj iM0mYCFx80cj2CRRgWCJDQ//skPUC0qcnPmEBcQWEdCVWHT2AVicWSBcoqn3HZgtLGAtMX39 V3aIZd8ZJZpP7GMFSXAKBEqse9AAtIwD6DxxiZ7GIIheTYnW7b+h5shLNG+dDXaPENBtDU0d rBMYhWYhWT0LScssJC0LGJlXMYoWpxYX56YbGemlFmUmFxfn5+nlpZZsYgQG8sEtv612MB58 7niIUYCDUYmHt/hLZLAQa2JZcWXuIUZpDhYlcd5Ji9yDhQTSE0tSs1NTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEy cXBKNTA6b/N8K38hUuXqjW1zD6dLKDPez7yh3rJg1wEmAZnH35xVUq0uW3ML7XK7X6b6oY8n RnKzku+DGXJtc1T9Z3s/7whzYZflvX4tdsOFc3Fsx210fi3YqXjC2UqZe8qWoi+qPyI1Z+/r +9t3laHKLT1w6hK+lQLtbMzH/zAuEVqoO09m3wlBCTclluKMREMt5qLiRACZXM+sRQIAAA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/LcRfNBXX-XrUB87m0V71wXv_aUs
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: Mon, 05 May 2014 06:41:31 -0000

On 2014-05-02 19:10, Martin Thomson wrote:
> 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)


Yes, and from my personal position, I think it is fine to leave RFC 5764
alone here. The 128 methods per class should be sufficient.

But I do agree that we should work to ensure that these limitations are
reflected in STUN's IANA section.

> 
>> 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.

Agreed, but it was a decision that was discussed in the community when
it happened.

> 
> 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.
> 

I also think so. And, I think the minimal work needed here is to address
STUN's IANA rules within the TRAM WG, not also change values in RFC
5764. Therefore I would like to reject this Errata.

I will give everyone two weeks to think this over and object against my
proposal to reject the errata.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------