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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

WG,

Based on this discussion it appears that the conclusion was to Reject
this errata. We have ongoing document work that will address this issue,
so approving it would be to get ahead of that work. Secondly, held for
document update appears possible, but also unnecessary now that the work
actually is happening.

So this will be requested to be rejected by the AD, unless someone
speaks up before the 13th of February.

Cheers

Magnus
WG chair

On 2014-05-05 08:41, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> On 2014-05-02 19:10, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 2 May 2014 01:26, Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]> 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  [phone]
> Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------