Re: [Dime] NAPTR fix for 3588bis

Mark Jones <Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com> Mon, 12 April 2010 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com>
X-Original-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dime@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523CD3A6AC3 for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.395
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.203, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id waEFeE+9V-zf for <dime@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail29.messagelabs.com (mail29.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B6463A684B for <dime@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-29.messagelabs.com!1271102902!67819812!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [72.35.6.119]
Received: (qmail 18939 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2010 20:08:23 -0000
Received: from mail.bridgewatersystems.com (HELO webmail.bridgewatersystems.com) (72.35.6.119) by server-9.tower-29.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 12 Apr 2010 20:08:23 -0000
Received: from m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.148]) by m679t01.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com ([10.52.81.144]) with mapi; Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:08:21 -0400
From: Mark Jones <Mark.Jones@bridgewatersystems.com>
To: "lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com" <lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com>, "vf0213@gmail.com" <vf0213@gmail.com>, "sdecugis@nict.go.jp" <sdecugis@nict.go.jp>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:08:19 -0400
Thread-Topic: [Dime] NAPTR fix for 3588bis
Thread-Index: AcraO5brqmW8eFIpSu6LMDfWj08HgwAEDgQQAAvvMKA=
Message-ID: <B4B762B06D90774E9E8016C89B66AF87561323C0@m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com>
References: <B4B762B06D90774E9E8016C89B66AF8756131D63@m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com><4BB43191.5000505@nict.go.jp><B4B762B06D90774E9E8016C89B66AF875613229B@m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com><u2v919c9f451004081322h9f72706eg2fef6ab3517b624f@mail.gmail.com><B4B762B06D90774E9E8016C89B66AF87561322BB@m679t05.fpmis.bridgewatersys.com><4BC288CB.9030002@nict.go.jp> <u2x919c9f451004120527oc1ae023bj9c6f1a3b60592212@mail.gmail.com> <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0C73B96F@ftrdmel1>
In-Reply-To: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0C73B96F@ftrdmel1>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B4B762B06D90774E9E8016C89B66AF87561323C0m679t05fpmisbri_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dime@ietf.org" <dime@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Dime] NAPTR fix for 3588bis
X-BeenThere: dime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diameter Maintanence and Extentions Working Group <dime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dime>
List-Post: <mailto:dime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime>, <mailto:dime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:08:50 -0000

Works for me. I assume we'd still keep "diameter.tls.tcp" as the tag format so that "diameter.tls.sctp" can be used in the separate draft.

Mark

From: lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com [mailto:lionel.morand@orange-ftgroup.com]
Sent: April 12, 2010 11:59 AM
To: vf0213@gmail.com; sdecugis@nict.go.jp
Cc: Mark Jones; dime@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Dime] NAPTR fix for 3588bis

Hi,

Taking account that this topic came quite late in the revision process and to not delay the publication of the RFC3588bis, we could maybe consider to address TLS over SCTP in a separete draft in a latter phase if there is a WG interest of the WG to support this option.

Would it be acceptable?

Regards,

Lionel


________________________________
De : dime-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Victor Fajardo
Envoyé : lundi 12 avril 2010 14:28
À : Sebastien Decugis
Cc : Mark Jones; dime@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Dime] NAPTR fix for 3588bis
Hi Sebastien,
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Sebastien Decugis <sdecugis@nict.go.jp<mailto:sdecugis@nict.go.jp>> wrote:
Hi,

Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation.

Le 09/04/2010 07:02, Mark Jones a écrit :
> 4) Application protocol tag for TLS does not differentiate TLS/TCP vs
> TLS/SCTP (Sebastian).
>
>                 Conclusion: New TLS tags proposed to Sebastian. Still
> open.
>

I am perfectly fine with the resolution you proposed, thank you!

> 5) Missing ref to TLS/SCTP - RFC3436 (Sebastian).
>
>                 Conclusion: Add the missing reference to 3588bis.
> Unrelated to this fix though.
>
I guess this resolution will require a bit more feedback from the group,
there may be other ways to implement TLS over SCTP... Can the chairs
give direction on this issue?


For all practical purpose, is there really a strong deployable reason to support TLS over SCTP ? I'm just hesitant to delay bis publication to support an academic exercise.

regards,
victor




Thanks!
Sebastien.

--
Sebastien Decugis
Research fellow
Network Architecture Group
NICT (nict.go.jp<http://nict.go.jp>)