Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01.txt

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Tue, 24 March 2015 23:12 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 019C91ACC72 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 29xjPTsfo8na for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B5381A001A for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79996d000006ebb-a3-5511ef4b2b7a
Received: from ESESSHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id DA.F7.28347.B4FE1155; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:12:12 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.210.2; Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:12:11 +0100
Message-ID: <5511EF46.3090600@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 18:12:06 -0500
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>, <avt@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes@tools.ietf.org>
References: <20150324212925.29176.38583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5511DBDC.3090907@ericsson.com> <5511E873.1010203@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <5511E873.1010203@acm.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrALMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7Pe8FQgwN7uCxe9qxkt9j9JNTi wpq7TA7MHpeveHssWfKTyePL5c9sAcxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBkTll5jLNjFXzG7pZ25gfEL TxcjJ4eEgInE5eZt7BC2mMSFe+vZuhi5OIQEjjBKvJl+iR3CWc4oMefqOSaQKl4BbYnPF/aA 2SwCqhJrV/xiBrHZBCwkbv5oZAOxRQWCJX6274aqF5Q4OfMJC4gtIlAs8WDrP7C4sICfxN/T e8HiQgI1Ek93HgSLcwqoS1zYv5C1i5GDg1lAU2L9Ln2QMLOAvETz1tnMEOXaEg1NHawTGAVm IdkwC6FjFpKOBYzMqxhFi1OLk3LTjYz0Uosyk4uL8/P08lJLNjECg/Tglt8GOxhfPnc8xCjA wajEw2twWSBUiDWxrLgy9xCjNAeLkjivnfGhECGB9MSS1OzU1ILUovii0pzU4kOMTBycUg2M ictko9c9C+v6yNY7j8dl4/Ybh579m6TEJf2odMI7R1ft2Y+6M7f97rw399dvkcmHWYVmfD8z 1yhVYeO56oP3kg97s0n9DPFr+B/9veqo5+mTW2uZeVg+/PjhsS57o/OxeSIPb6tI5s55IBoo wGUvKtSyMaG098WBGcdmKzgsOXz0TNbJpWekpyuxFGckGmoxFxUnAgCf2ilSMwIAAA==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/mVWyEDcVeE8g7WlaXSShrxz-fL8>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01.txt
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: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:12:19 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2015-03-24 17:42, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> On 03/24/2015 04:49 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> Marc,
> 
>> I really wonder if the SCTP over UDP allocation should be in this
>> draft. I definitely don't think the motivation that is present in
>> Section 1.2 is reason for this document to perform an
>> allocation.
> 
>> I think that allocation should happen at the time when there
>> actually are consensus on using SCTP over UDP in a setting which
>> requires demultiplexing with STUN etc. Currently we appear to be
>> missing quite a bit of glue between SCTP over UDP (RFC6951) and
>> using ICE to establish that UDP flow for it.
> 
> 
> Please note that STUN over SCTP over UDP has nothing to do with
> ICE, but with using ORIGIN with TURN allocation.
> 

Okay, but the general issue why we have to do de-multiplexing is ICE.
If you only run TURN on a port, you would never need to demultiplex.


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
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVEe9EAAoJEI8lntdG3bTwu30IAJTXKWxgQBYk/wGimNS5fCan
4vk505pIf6R9eXxhMqmFjBrYwv+F/YU8XQRn3ANHAecjVe+Zxq6o0mV8ni0msf3m
MT4PiZUu52RkpDTsO5194xnv6+iFEYE5ZT3Ae0gRV0Ki2HyR6Fr3IoYW6VFXNJHE
OiUKO2bM/1r7qBxcGMlJjaIMMO5pQPFjH9nwxjDktGMkJyBAi4GSewRK6wgH8Z6b
6m0mw4Ips6PVncN4ZVdLC9X6VY5L0QiCsP5DbfNxt3MaL85T9zXRD7LSu8eq4eRN
oGMpJ3rvwgaoMXqrzoovAghUXkAAoX0GAFvJlpACpFisFXbjqALPy4XpWuT221o=
=OD/U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----