Re: [bfcpbis] AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 8855 <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

Charles,

We have moved the RFC 8445 reference to the Normative References section.

   The files have been posted here:
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8855.txt
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8855.pdf
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8855.html
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8855.xml

    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8855-lastdiff.html (this change)
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8855-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 
changes)
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc8855-diff.html (all changes)

Best regards,

RFC Editor/jm


On 9/28/20 5:13 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
>
> Hi Jean,
>
> Yes, please do.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charles
>
> *From: *Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Monday, September 28, 2020 at 3:10 PM
> *To: *Charles Eckel <[e-mail]>, Roman Shpount 
> <[e-mail]>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" 
> <eckelcu=[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Alan Ford <[e-mail]>, Joerg Ott <[e-mail]>, 
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, 
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Gonzalo Camarillo 
> <[e-mail]>, Keith Drage <[e-mail]>, 
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Christer Holmberg 
> <[e-mail]>, Mary Barnes 
> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" 
> <[e-mail]>, RFC Editor <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: [bfcpbis] AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 8855 
> <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>
> Hi Charles,
>
> Shall I proceed with moving the reference to RFC 8445 from informative 
> to normative?
>
> Thanks!
>
> RFC Editor/jm
>
> On 9/22/20 3:26 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
>
>     Thanks Roman.
>
>     Your review and confirmation of this approach is very helpful and
>     is much appreciated.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Charles
>
>     *From: *Roman Shpount <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Date: *Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 1:20 PM
>     *To: *"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)"
>     <eckelcu=[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:eckelcu=[e-mail]>
>     *Cc: *Alan Ford <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, Joerg Ott <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, Gonzalo Camarillo
>     <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, Keith Drage
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     "[e-mail]" <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, Christer
>     Holmberg <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, Jean Mahoney
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, Mary Barnes
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>,
>     "[e-mail]" <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>, RFC
>     Editor <[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Subject: *Re: [bfcpbis] AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 8855
>     <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>     *Resent-From: *<[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Resent-To: *Keith Drage <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>, Charles Eckel <[e-mail]>
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 1:20 PM
>
>     Hi Charles,
>
>     Per your request, I have reviewed this as and this looks like a
>     correct way to proceed.
>
>     Best Regards,
>
>     _____________
>     Roman Shpount
>
>     On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 4:09 PM Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>     <eckelcu=[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         Great, thanks Alan.
>
>         Cheers,
>         Charles
>
>         On 9/17/20, 11:27 AM, "Alan Ford" <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>             Charles, all,
>
>             This seems the correct way to proceed. These are clearly
>         normative references, and as regards 5389 vs 8489, 8445
>         references 5389 normatively anyway so if we changed that we
>         would diverge from 8445.
>
>             Best regards,
>             Alan
>
>             > On 15 Sep 2020, at 16:53, Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
>         <eckelcu=[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>             >
>             > Thanks Christer.
>             >
>             > To recap, the updated proposal is to:
>             >
>             > 1) maintain the normative reference to RFC 5389 STUN
>         rather than replace it with a reference to RFC 8489
>             > 2) update the reference to RFC 5245 ICE to RFC 8445 ICE
>         (this change has already been made a result of AUTH 48)
>             > 3) make the informative reference to RFC 8445 ICE a
>         normative reference to be consistent with the normative
>         reference to RFC 5389 STUN and with the normative reference to
>         RFC 8845 ICE in rfc4583bis.
>             >
>             > Christer, please confirm if I have capture this correctly.
>             > Everyone else, your feedback here is greatly appreciated
>         as well.
>             >
>             > Cheers,
>             > Charles
>             >
>             > On 9/15/20, 8:13 AM, "Christer Holmberg"
>         <christer.holmberg=[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>             >
>             >    Hi,
>             >
>             >    ...
>             >
>             >>>> 2) make the reference to RFC 5389/STUN an informative
>         reference as is already done for RFC 5245/ICE
>             >>>
>             >>> My suggestion would actually be to update the ICE
>         reference to RFC 8445. Again, that would align with other C238
>         cluster documents that reference ICE.
>             >>
>             >> [cue] Good point. This reference has already been
>         updated to RFC 8445 as part of AUTH-48.
>             >
>             >    Good.
>             >
>             >>> And, in RFC 8445 STUN is a *normative* reference.
>             >>
>             >> [cue] In rfc4582bis, the reference to ICE is currently
>         Informative, whereas the reference to STUN is Normative. I
>         believe they should either both be Normative or both be
>         Informative.
>             >> Do you happen to know which way would be more
>         consistent with similar references to STUN/ICE in cluster
>         C238? In rfc4583bis, the reference to ICE is currently Normative.
>             >
>             >    Correct. rfc4583bis actually defines ICE procedures
>         for BFCP, so Normative is fine.
>             >
>             >    4582bis contains the following sentence:
>             >
>             >       "In order to facilitate the initial establishment
>         of NAT bindings, and
>             >       to maintain those bindings once established, BFCP
>         entities using an
>             >       unreliable transport are RECOMMENDED to use STUN
>         [12] Binding
>             >       Indication for keep-alives, as described for ICE
>         [17]."
>             >
>             >    As you can see, it is actually described in the ICE
>         spec on how to use STUN. So, therefore I agree that both
>         should be either Normative or Informative. And, since there is
>         a "RECOMMENDED", I assume that means they would have to be
>         Normative.
>             >
>             >    Regards,
>             >
>             >    Christer
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >        On 5/21/20, 1:55 PM, "Keith Drage"
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>             >
>             >            I do note that the normative requirement is
>         at SHOULD strength.
>             >
>             >            However there are no statements that support
>         an implementor to decide
>             >            under what conditions the requirement can be
>         ignored, or the
>             >            consequences of ignoring, one or other of
>         which should really be there.
>             >
>             >            The lack of that information does not help in
>         trying to evaluate the
>             >            consequences of updating the reference,
>         versus leaving the reference as
>             >            it is - note that there is a risk both ways.
>             >
>             >            The quick review I did, resulted in my
>         feeling that the upgrade would be
>             >            OK, but I am not an expert in that area.
>         Certainly I think either way it
>             >            should go to the WG for a quick review.
>             >
>             >            Keith
>             >
>             >            On 21/05/2020 19:09, Jean Mahoney wrote:
>             >> Hi Charles,
>             >>
>             >> On 5/21/20 11:31 AM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
>             >>> Hi Jean,
>             >>>
>             >>> I am more comfortable sticking with RFC 5389 at this
>         point in time.
>             >>
>             >>
>             >> Ack.
>             >>
>             >>
>             >>> That said, I know that in another thread Christer made
>         the point of
>             >>> being consistent across the cluster in terms of
>         referencing RFC 5389
>             >>> vs. RFC 8489. If the decision is for the cluster
>         switch to RFC 8489,
>             >>> we can consider that. However, I think we would need
>         to take it back
>             >>> to the working group to see if there are any issues
>         because I do not
>             >>> believe the working group was not tracking this update
>         and did not
>             >>> anticipate its publication.
>             >>
>             >>
>             >> FWIW, so far, the one C238 document that has updated
>         their STUN
>             >> reference to RFC 8489 has an informative ref to it, not
>         a normative one.
>             >>
>             >> Thanks!
>             >>
>             >> RFC Editor/jm
>             >>
>             >>
>             >>>
>             >>> Cheers,
>             >>> Charles
>             >>>
>             >>> On 5/20/20, 12:36 PM, "Jean Mahoney"
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>             >>>
>             >>>     Authors,
>             >>>
>             >>>     We note that this document has a normative
>         reference to RFC 5389
>             >>> (STUN),
>             >>>     which was obsoleted just recently by RFC 8489.  Do
>         you wish to
>             >>> update
>             >>>     this reference to RFC 8489?
>             >>>
>             >>>     Thanks!
>             >>>
>             >>>     RFC Editor/jm
>             >>>
>             >>>
>             >
>             > _______________________________________________
>             >        bfcpbis mailing list
>             > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>
>             >
>             >
>             > _______________________________________________
>             > bfcpbis mailing list
>             > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>             > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         bfcpbis mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>