IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] GenART post-telechat comment on draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-08

"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Sat, 10 September 2016 04:39 UTC

Return-Path: <tireddy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 701A612B31F; Fri, 9 Sep 2016 21:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.028
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 1AsQhcVRGQOU; Fri, 9 Sep 2016 21:39:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 023DD12B15F; Fri, 9 Sep 2016 21:39:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13434; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1473482370; x=1474691970; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=u4WszooPUqkPbJSRs51OnAhCnMEfB3c4m4QYq0+sXJo=; b=mAN7jIqSmnXftoDsibrpIYKIwqAaLaGzsBJShrH8alO7DZbJbFjpGQAc 9FtPDI2D+HoQOWDxQmiwMzDx9v5KzuA6KYLAJkAzT8Qin/H2r0WlFl82J suqID+lNUkkDcvNHw9SCRRvGb8w53NhsdxwCrm88BVxlSBcQsOb1LJ87M 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CKAQDMjdNX/5ldJa1bAxYDAQEBAQEBAQEBAQGCejMBAQEBAR5XfAeNLKYJhQ2CAyCFfQKBTDgUAQIBAQEBAQEBXieEYQEBAQQtTBACAQgOAwQBASgHMhQJCAIEAQ0FCIhCDsELAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHIYwhE+EKgYxFRGFFQWIPYcohC2FUAGPQYF1hGCHb4ElhneFXoN6AR42gjkOghNwhScHgSh/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,308,1470700800"; d="scan'208,217";a="145615320"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Sep 2016 04:39:28 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com (xch-aln-016.cisco.com [173.36.7.26]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u8A4dSwS023803 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:39:28 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-017.cisco.com (173.37.102.27) by XCH-ALN-016.cisco.com (173.36.7.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 9 Sep 2016 23:39:27 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-017.cisco.com ([173.37.102.27]) by XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com ([173.37.102.27]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Fri, 9 Sep 2016 23:39:27 -0500
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: GenART post-telechat comment on draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-08
Thread-Index: AQHSCFiLm4+HgrE2lU6LKYpWnDFIuqBxq9KAgAB9LPA=
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:39:27 +0000
Message-ID: <d53f66f6ba43488eb69c89fa16c102f5@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com>
References: <6ECD9A3A-0D63-421B-953D-A516D773CCBA@qti.qualcomm.com> <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF643E961F1@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <092F2B7C-4B03-4956-9C0E-1C5983D2AF72@qti.qualcomm.com> <abf54eff0f4c4d28b45db8e185e5e5c2@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com> <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF643E99AAA@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <B4CE5A5C-3DB0-4B4B-86B9-B7AF02F7DB76@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <B4CE5A5C-3DB0-4B4B-86B9-B7AF02F7DB76@qti.qualcomm.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.65.72.6]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_d53f66f6ba43488eb69c89fa16c102f5XCHRCD017ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/4ZOqrKgGPb_voFEhMU-yIh6NmYA>
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility.all@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] GenART post-telechat comment on draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 04:39:32 -0000

From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qti.qualcomm.com]
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2016 9:38 PM
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Cc: Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <tireddy@cisco.com>; IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility.all@ietf.org; tram@ietf.org
Subject: Re: GenART post-telechat comment on draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-08


On 9 Sep 2016, at 4:33, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Tiru,
On 09/07/2016 10:50 PM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) wrote:
[TR] I propose the following text to avoid the confusion:
If a client wants to refresh an existing allocation and update its
time-to-expiry or delete an existing allocation in case of no IP address
change, it will send a
Refresh Request as described in Section 7.1 of [RFC5766] and MUST NOT
include a MOBILITY-TICKET attribute. If the client wants to retain
the existing allocation in case of IP address change, it will include the
MOBILITY-TICKET attribute received in the Allocate Success response
in the Refresh Request.
I have no issues with this new text. Please check with Pete if it resolves
his concerns.

Wait, now I'm even more confused. The second sentence says that you are allowed to include the MOBILITY-TICKET attribute in a Refresh Request if you want to retain the allocation, even though the first sentence says you MUST NOT. Is this because the Refresh Request with the MOBILITY-TICKET attribute will only be rejected if the IP address is the same? If so, perhaps this is what you meant:

If a client wants to refresh an existing allocation and update its

time-to-expiry or delete an existing allocation, it sends a Refresh

Request as described in Section 7.1 of [RFC5766]. If IP address of

the client has changed and the client wants to retain the existing

allocation, the client includes the MOBILITY-TICKET attribute

received in the Allocate Success response in the Refresh Request. If

there has been no IP address change, the client MUST NOT include a

MOBILITY-TICKET attribute, as this will be rejected by the server

and the client would need to retransmit the Refresh Request.

If that's not what you meant, you should probably clarify.

[TR] Thanks, Looks good, will add at the end of the last line "without a MOBILITY-TICKET attribute".

-Tiru





pr
--
Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/<http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email