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

[Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>]

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]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 1:20 PM
> *To: *"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]>, Jean Mahoney <[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
> *Resent-From: *<[e-mail]>
> *Resent-To: *Keith Drage <[e-mail]>, Charles Eckel 
> <[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
>