IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bfcpbis] BFCP-UDP and DTLS

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Wed, 28 November 2012 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <eckelcu@cisco.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 46F4421F888D for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:49:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f98NFCmMKZ-m for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:49:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F3321F85E2 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:49:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2290; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1354139362; x=1355348962; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=flT4H4YLVaRi4ArG2sjLpVUGPT0gQSYbGaeoIWinq/g=; b=OUqW8aZr3+Y1AIvhPxTF+zlYMXV6aCLcR6X+lm6cM2MyagPsljmlE57q VVlspS64QC5GST7x/SW9xekamteDieGKmteBveysCrv1XUQx5E/xFkOz8 ZguuzyVoXbu5L2sqaCeXjHlCUjODyG/62ovFgRvl5NmVUcHkzSJmqB6mn k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAPeFtlCtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABFwCIWc4IeAQEBBAEBATc0FwQCAQgRBAEBAQoUCQcnCxQJCAEBBAESCIgIDL8XBIw/g2BhA5JPk3aCcoIh
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6910"; a="147313785"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Nov 2012 21:49:22 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com [173.36.12.79]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qASLnL3N010029 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:49:21 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.65]) by xhc-aln-x05.cisco.com ([173.36.12.79]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:49:21 -0600
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: "Tom Kristensen (tomkrist)" <tomkrist@cisco.com>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] BFCP-UDP and DTLS
Thread-Index: Ac3NRJglVoRPliakSkmUjyl/HukRqAAY1vQAAAKB+qA=
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:49:21 +0000
Message-ID: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C08828046CC03E@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B047F4F@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <50B62146.2050707@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <50B62146.2050707@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.76.250]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] BFCP-UDP and DTLS
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:49:29 -0000

(as an individual)
Adding a reference to 6.7.2 of RFC 5763 sounds like a good idea to me, and I agree that rfc4582bis is probably a more appropriate place for this than rfc4583bis.

Cheers,
Charles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom Kristensen (tomkrist)
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 6:36 AM
> To: bfcpbis@ietf.org
> Subject: 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
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email