Re: [BEHAVE] DISCUSS: draft-ietf-behave-turn

[Philip Matthews <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, 4-Apr-09, at 16:09 , Russ Housley wrote:

> Discuss:
>
>  The IAB Considerations in RFC 3424 have not been changed, and it
>  is clear to me that TURN has an indefinite lifetime.  So, the first
>  two IAB UNSAF criteria cannot realistically be satisfied.  I do not
>  want to delay the document, but I do think it should include a
>  recognition of this conflict.  I'm happy with an IESG note or text
>  in the body of the document.
>

Actually, RFC 3424 only very tangentially applies to TURN, since TURN  
is just a protocol for controlling a relay. RFC 3424  applies to STUN  
and ICE much more directly.

Consideration 1 simply asks for a precise definition of the problem  
that TURN fixes, so I don't see what else can be said here.

However, Consideration 2 asks for an exit strategy or transition plan.  
Here I have changed the text of the response to Consideration 2 to read:

     Response: TURN will no longer be needed once there are no longer
     any NATs.  Unfortunately, as of the date of publication of this
     document, it no longer seems very likely that NATs will go away
     any time soon. However, the need for TURN will also decrease as
     the number of NATs with the mapping property of Endpoint- 
Independent
     Mapping [RFC4787] increases.

- Philip