IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bfcpbis] Updates to draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis required to enable ICE

Roman Shpount <rshpount@turbobridge.com> Thu, 02 March 2017 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <rshpount@turbobridge.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C218E128BA2 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:50:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=turbobridge.com
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 9jZAv1TPz2Li for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:50:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x233.google.com (mail-pf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B92F126B6D for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:50:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id w189so26783452pfb.0 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:50:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=turbobridge.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dxRi9Mnd9UQW/0VFaHfhB89I7ys0KWBcWAdJ3lud6TI=; b=PcXZgWcgwgx6iFOxp/L/rSSVdl9v8J3DU12hDeZtDU3pIxJuRQkk3ke0ZinQLAwuwk zEPhBGGnFVUkhzvejNBE8BD/GVL1+/S6skGXO7i8v9eOuKTcumNbXysQKZSZAcZiX1Zu 4UJf2UopGyJv9UILIjtgAKno3K2p0CnUajGHc=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dxRi9Mnd9UQW/0VFaHfhB89I7ys0KWBcWAdJ3lud6TI=; b=ISvKDBoswUqvxVR+bmOCR0GODGhFJnO5G61B39rGYtWra+yHiuNGHJdQofx2dikN68 IoLMKato3gSA1dJbd0mMC5Y0AhNvxact7DM6dpuMZeQhwnNDVMsSCncSE2c5AfZa+M89 5FD7VpHeTU2aAupF2OMXDx/z28KQhLpUR7F2+M/ADcrOrW8ePFIrTU5V+3gtBZnji3JV tfNL8zQtbeLW4Nsgk7Lp1w31eFvxGxY9QLL348N76rAJ0IK2DCQdWIaVePMmH9V6/LSa 8n8XbCfe0LsifGlajkZ3T2wl/yguumQjYIBVEpqlGC/gd+OCRgavQHqGnr/9njAZgtDE 1/Cg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mDhX8tAs71EoWERcd7H4ux8uz1JGCmmrtIJqBxOAC9//2X4X1ty9djXCqqfmIntw==
X-Received: by 10.99.105.66 with SMTP id e63mr18685366pgc.104.1488498600030; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:50:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-f172.google.com (mail-pf0-f172.google.com. [209.85.192.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a16sm18522563pgd.62.2017.03.02.15.49.59 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:49:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-f172.google.com with SMTP id e66so8364084pfe.1 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:49:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.99.138.202 with SMTP id y193mr18454301pgd.60.1488498599227; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:49:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.161.144 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:49:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52AB0C16-BED7-4402-8368-3FAC4B3B64BB@cisco.com>
References: <CAD5OKxs9NN1CtNYaZEiGUxK-UUs=LwYq=A8n69LZ4REE80EzUQ@mail.gmail.com> <52AB0C16-BED7-4402-8368-3FAC4B3B64BB@cisco.com>
From: Roman Shpount <rshpount@turbobridge.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 18:49:58 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtir5MYpSMhugr=kR3pKMLVsJew1MV5dvDiW=tWX+sg7A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxtir5MYpSMhugr=kR3pKMLVsJew1MV5dvDiW=tWX+sg7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c03aefa417de40549c81622"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/86iu4wao72Xcs5Hzmvjb-wwWkjI>
Cc: "Tom Kristensen (tomkrist)" <tomkrist@cisco.com>, Tom Kristensen <tomkri@ifi.uio.no>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Updates to draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis required to enable ICE
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <bfcpbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bfcpbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 23:50:02 -0000

Charles,

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:29 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco.com>
wrote:

> [cue] We define the proto field value UDP/TLS/BFCP in this draft for BFCP
> over DTLS. Would it not be more straightforward and consistent to define
> the new proto value as TCP/UDP/TLS/BFCP instead of TCP/DTLS/BFCP?
>
>
>
I am trying to keep proto names as close as possible to
draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp. I understand that there are already
implementations which use UDP/TLS/BFCP so we cannot change it to the
technically correct value which is UDP/DTLS/BFCP. After all, we are using
DTLS transport, which is different from TLS.

Since there are no implementations of TCP/DTLS/BFCP, we should use the
technically correct protocol string. There is no UDP layer in TCP/DTLS/BFCP
transport stack, since DTLS packets are passed directly to RFC4571 shim.
Because of this I think TCP/DTLS/BFCP value is accurate and appropriate.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email