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

Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> Mon, 28 September 2020 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <jmahoney@amsl.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 75AEB3A0853; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 j56aFXRAymVC; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B3C43A1441; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B9A3C2FB5; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zz8gWaqqbHsq; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from AMSs-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [47.186.30.41]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 215493C2FB3; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>, "jo@comnet.tkk.fi" <jo@comnet.tkk.fi>, "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, Keith Drage <drageke@ntlworld.com>, "bfcpbis-ads@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-ads@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com" <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>, "tom@kristensen.larvik.no" <tom@kristensen.larvik.no>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20200505062106.40196F4072C@rfc-editor.org> <20200505062634.GA22852@rfc-editor.org> <90116eda-0692-e727-8901-98aeeb578e6e@amsl.com> <FFB537B8-6FD4-4D8C-AC4A-9DB4CC9411DE@cisco.com> <09c10dfd-9d48-49b7-764b-a41923c90186@amsl.com> <45c39325-5f5b-6161-304e-91beae81dd20@ntlworld.com> <089754DF-62D6-4544-9B9D-FA3DD18C5F57@cisco.com> <AM0PR07MB38607B50A6FE921CD2288C6493200@AM0PR07MB3860.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <620E4721-DE3D-4091-8E4D-5AB7535478C4@cisco.com> <AM0PR07MB3860B2C54BCAB8CDF86BA23C93200@AM0PR07MB3860.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <D5B11705-0744-4FFB-8244-EF38FCBB27F2@cisco.com> <2D1DB7B6-184E-4B96-9E29-4127AF5B6A00@gmail.com> <84F3EE2D-9ED9-454F-99B0-2FA7C6DAD54F@cisco.com> <CAD5OKxtoh0ptboh3E-nrQsvQXZKZk+Je+S+5O3Moi_2hPWSa-w@mail.gmail.com> <FA9141D6-1581-4B52-B7B2-91B2B6CC8A14@cisco.com> <312fe819-6713-0ef5-9af1-f737970c3ee8@amsl.com> <2DFE829C-DCF0-49E0-B4D3-94975FF8AFE1@cisco.com>
From: Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>
Message-ID: <0c83e327-edbb-1f18-6d95-25e397d5386d@amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:39:12 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2DFE829C-DCF0-49E0-B4D3-94975FF8AFE1@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------77F39392BCBA506E96B71426"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/C0BMyEoqqoYboH8TQ7Jymh9zuec>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 29 Sep 2020 07:27:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 8855 <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:39:31 -0000

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 <jmahoney@amsl.com>
> *Date: *Monday, September 28, 2020 at 3:10 PM
> *To: *Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com>om>, Roman Shpount 
> <roman@telurix.com>om>, "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" 
> <eckelcu=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Cc: *Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>om>, Joerg Ott <jo@comnet.tkk.fi>fi>, 
> "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, 
> "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>rg>, Gonzalo Camarillo 
> <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>om>, Keith Drage <drageke@ntlworld.com>om>, 
> "bfcpbis-ads@ietf.org" <bfcpbis-ads@ietf.org>rg>, Christer Holmberg 
> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>om>, Mary Barnes 
> <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>om>, "tom@kristensen.larvik.no" 
> <tom@kristensen.larvik.no>no>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
> *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 <roman@telurix.com> <mailto:roman@telurix.com>
>     *Date: *Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 1:20 PM
>     *To: *"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)"
>     <eckelcu=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
>     <mailto:eckelcu=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
>     *Cc: *Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>
>     <mailto:alan.ford@gmail.com>, Joerg Ott <jo@comnet.tkk.fi>
>     <mailto:jo@comnet.tkk.fi>, "bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org"
>     <mailto:bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org> <bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org"
>     <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org> <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo
>     <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
>     <mailto:gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, Keith Drage
>     <drageke@ntlworld.com> <mailto:drageke@ntlworld.com>,
>     "bfcpbis-ads@ietf.org" <mailto:bfcpbis-ads@ietf.org>
>     <bfcpbis-ads@ietf.org> <mailto:bfcpbis-ads@ietf.org>, Christer
>     Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
>     <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Jean Mahoney
>     <jmahoney@amsl.com> <mailto:jmahoney@amsl.com>, Mary Barnes
>     <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> <mailto:mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>,
>     "tom@kristensen.larvik.no" <mailto:tom@kristensen.larvik.no>
>     <tom@kristensen.larvik.no> <mailto:tom@kristensen.larvik.no>, RFC
>     Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> <mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
>     *Subject: *Re: [bfcpbis] AUTH48 [JM]: RFC 8855
>     <draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-16.txt> NOW AVAILABLE
>     *Resent-From: *<alias-bounces@ietf.org>
>     <mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>
>     *Resent-To: *Keith Drage <drageke@ntlworld.com>
>     <mailto:drageke@ntlworld.com>, Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com>
>     <mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com>
>     *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=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org
>     <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>
>         Great, thanks Alan.
>
>         Cheers,
>         Charles
>
>         On 9/17/20, 11:27 AM, "Alan Ford" <alan.ford@gmail.com
>         <mailto:alan.ford@gmail.com>> 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=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org
>         <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> 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=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org
>         <mailto:40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> 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"
>         <drageke@ntlworld.com <mailto:drageke@ntlworld.com>> 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"
>         <jmahoney@amsl.com <mailto:jmahoney@amsl.com>> 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
>             > bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
>             > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>         <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>
>             >
>             >
>             > _______________________________________________
>             > bfcpbis mailing list
>             > bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
>             > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         bfcpbis mailing list
>         bfcpbis@ietf.org <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>