IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bfcpbis] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 25 October 2018 11:20 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 7E22A130DE7; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 04:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <iPhKQGhKTFEB>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Non-encoded 8-bit data (char 9C hex): Received: ...s kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)\n\t\234by outgoing.mit[...]
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 iPhKQGhKTFEB; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 04:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu [18.9.25.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66617127333; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 04:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1209190d-d9dff70000002e21-c7-5bd1a6ea1e8c
Received: from mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.35]) (using TLS with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-2.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 4F.1D.11809.AE6A1DB5; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 07:20:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-1.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.9.2) with ESMTP id w9PBK8if013541; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 07:20:09 -0400
Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) �by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w9PBK4DY027595 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 07:20:06 -0400
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:20:03 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, bfcpbis@ietf.org, mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com, draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis@ietf.org, bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20181025112003.GX45914@kduck.kaduk.org>
References: <154042672428.6988.18020634608915878362.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7f8ac9fd-0a02-56dd-080d-a16a105e4b99@nostrum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7f8ac9fd-0a02-56dd-080d-a16a105e4b99@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmplleLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IR4hRV1n217GK0wcIDGhZ7/i5it/i48BuL xb91R5ksule8ZbeY8Wcis8Xn/fuZHdg8ds66y+6xZMlPJo9ZO5+wBDBHcdmkpOZklqUW6dsl cGUc3v6KseAqR8XbGQfZGxhb2bsYOTkkBEwkLq78wdLFyMUhJLCGSWLZ8cVQzkZGiZ/fZzFD OHeZJJ78ecgC0sIioCrxafZlMJtNQEWiofsyM4gtIqAo0Xb4JlgDs8AURokvJxczgiSEBdIl Jm2fAZTg4OAF2vfrlCTE0CZGiR3/d4LdwSsgKHFy5hOwocwCWhI3/r1kAqlnFpCWWP6PAyTM KWAvsXfdJlYQW1RAWWJv3yH2CYwCs5B0z0LSPQuhewEj8ypG2ZTcKt3cxMyc4tRk3eLkxLy8 1CJdI73czBK91JTSTYzg0Jbk3cH4767XIUYBDkYlHl6FzReihVgTy4orcw8xSnIwKYnyJqZc jBbiS8pPqcxILM6ILyrNSS0+xCjBwawkwuscB5TjTUmsrEotyodJSXOwKInzTmhZHC0kkJ5Y kpqdmlqQWgSTleHgUJLgfbIUqFGwKDU9tSItM6cEIc3EwQkynAdoeDtIDW9xQWJucWY6RP4U o6KUOG8lSEIAJJFRmgfXC0o9Etn7a14xigO9IszrC0xEQjzAtAXX/QpoMBPQ4BkKF0AGlyQi pKQaGJeZ9+k/Xvj/LMcKD7XnKyNcV1k4Vi91bT7uE1g3Yc/iFxvSP5own+ieFaLFePlGOMur z1XfavmZhec/79Puum3Zl1U2+5R1VtLzDXlXH1p94jaQusK/fz635SsVE5PJ5leLXRmkJz+x XPg+KvN0mYvOa5bp+h8S15y0iN5Y+c5udkhWcj7XGyWW4oxEQy3mouJEAFXDaBEYAwAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/EFZaxHUhMFGDVgH2AbD0LQYvxgs>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:20:14 -0000

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:53:10AM -0500, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 10/24/18 7:18 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I will go ahead and say that we should discuss the "UDP/TLS/BFCP" naming.
> > In particular, while I see the previous discussion that there may be
> > existing deployments out there, why can we not give it the same treatment
> > as "mstrm", and make the official name "UDP/DTLS/BFCP" while documenting
> > that you should accept the old name?
> 
> 
> That would cause unrecoverable errors when a new client sends an offer 
> to a legacy client. That's a pretty bad backwards-compatibility story. I 
> get why the current value is ugly, but I don't think making new clients 
> fail to talk to old ones is a fair price for aesthetic adjustments.

I'm not 100% sure I understand the "unrecoverable" nature -- would this
cause the entire m= section to be ignored, or the negotiation to fail
completely?

-Benjamin

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email