Re: [bfcpbis] BFCP-UDP and DTLS

Thanks Christer,

In the upcoming version of rfc4583bis, the usage of the RFC 4145 'setup' 
will be described (in Section 8). This attribute was just mentioned in 
rfc4582bis until now.

In rfc4582bis we say: "In order to facilitate the initial establishment 
of NAT bindings, and to maintain those bindings once established, BFCP 
entities using unreliable transport are RECOMMENDED to use STUN <xref 
target="RFC5389"/> Binding Indication for keep-alives, as described for 
ICE <xref target="RFC5245"/>."

However, we may refer to Section 6.7 (and especially 6.7.2) as well, but 
that may belong to rfc4582bis (where usage of STUN binding indications 
are recommended) instead of rfc4583bis?

-- Tom

On 11/28/2012 09:55 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I haven't really been following the BFCPbis work, so I appologize if 
> the following has been discussed.
>
> draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis-03 refers to section 5 of RFC 5763 for 
> the SDP Offer/Answer procedures, and DTLS role selection (TLS 
> client/server).
>
> However, I think it would also be good to refer to section 6.7 of RFC 
> 5763. Especially section 6.7.2 is important, in my view. It says that 
> the passive UA sends a STUN request, in order to open the NAT pin 
> hole, which means both UAs don't have to be active if they are behind 
> NATs, and don't support ICE. Otherwise it could cause problem, if both 
> are active and end up acting as TLS clients.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bfcpbis mailing list
> bfcpbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
>    