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

Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com> Mon, 28 September 2020 22:09 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 53EBD3A1432; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:09:59 -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=unavailable 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 sdciLvAjXXIS; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:09:53 -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 9FB0A3A1430; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92A4F3C2F19; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:09:51 -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 PQrzH8CPQR3Z; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from AMSs-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [47.186.30.41]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8438F3C2F18; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:09:50 -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>
From: Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>
Message-ID: <312fe819-6713-0ef5-9af1-f737970c3ee8@amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:09:51 -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: <FA9141D6-1581-4B52-B7B2-91B2B6CC8A14@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------F82A8810F14EBF06167388EF"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/ER6Nm_zBw5-8nK4lLZ9EBSfoGVo>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 15:15:05 -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 22:10:00 -0000

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>
> *Date: *Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 1:20 PM
> *To: *"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>, Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.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
> *Resent-From: *<alias-bounces@ietf.org>
> *Resent-To: *Keith Drage <drageke@ntlworld.com>om>, Charles Eckel 
> <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
>