IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 25 October 2018 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 8B02112F18C; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 eD72k0_dhM_5; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:53:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E822912D4F2; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:53:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.attlocal.net (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w9P6rFoB068282 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 01:53:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.attlocal.net
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: bfcpbis@ietf.org, mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com, draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4583bis@ietf.org, bfcpbis-chairs@ietf.org
References: <154042672428.6988.18020634608915878362.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <7f8ac9fd-0a02-56dd-080d-a16a105e4b99@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 01:53:10 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <154042672428.6988.18020634608915878362.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/rEesA_FUC9AumCn02YFnyLIwJ6o>
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 06:53:20 -0000

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.

/a

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email