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

"Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> Wed, 07 September 2016 01:44 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 E6AF712B0ED; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 18:44:52 -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 YLF5OxRWmg78; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 18:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 497A812B09D; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 18:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15718; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1473212688; x=1474422288; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=6MuxW+sDZueoRPzRMhj/k3PO2Knc8mP3YCLC0QZGW6s=; b=a5zW4onyDwGGigeYX2PvHnPObonwelxo7mbWwAABlnWWQG9YAuCQA58r sPKwSEZAxJleWEr/S5yRClyB3f1L1uzxOyAnhrMRezigdPyF/uJ5ycziU 8m5tfyD0sSZDqnBau081nRNLdGBtTYdejGtzBUm3c3Tu/gZdYV4hN/Deo Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BUAQDGb89X/5hdJa1aAxYDAQEBAQEBAQEBAQGCejMBAQEBAR5XfAeFR4dho1GCLYUNggIkhB6BWgKBZzgUAQIBAQEBAQEBXieEYQEBAQQtTBACAQgOAwMBAQEoBzIUCQgCBAENBQiIQg4DvB8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEchi+EToQqBhUbARURhRUFiDuHI4l4AYYhhQqEBYF1ToQQiQ+Gc4Vbg3kBDw82gi8OKhuBTXABhTJ/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,294,1470700800"; d="scan'208,217";a="319632208"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Sep 2016 01:44:47 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com (xch-rcd-020.cisco.com [173.37.102.30]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u871ikvT004363 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Sep 2016 01:44:47 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-017.cisco.com (173.37.102.27) by XCH-RCD-020.cisco.com (173.37.102.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 20:44:46 -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; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 20:44:46 -0500
From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: GenART post-telechat comment on draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-08
Thread-Index: AQHSCFiLm4+HgrE2lU6LKYpWnDFIuqBtPtUw
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 01:44:46 +0000
Message-ID: <4d628d80cee442cabfd473a62e520b14@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com>
References: <6ECD9A3A-0D63-421B-953D-A516D773CCBA@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <6ECD9A3A-0D63-421B-953D-A516D773CCBA@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: [10.65.64.100]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4d628d80cee442cabfd473a62e520b14XCHRCD017ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/vmd2cIW_4gzWs6p6LfLKfD70XP0>
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>, "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: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 01:44:53 -0000

From: Pete Resnick [mailto:presnick@qti.qualcomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 9:25 PM
To: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: tram@ietf.org; draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility.all@ietf.org; General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: GenART post-telechat comment on draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-08


Greetings,

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other participants comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.

Document: draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2016-09-06
IESG Telechat date: 2016-09-01

Summary: This is an odd post-telechat review, but I think the draft has gone from "Ready" to "Ready with an issue" because of an IESG Eval change.

Details:

I did not get to my post-Last Call GenART review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility until after the telechat. Had I done so, which would have been on version -05, I would have said "Looks fine to me". However, I happened to look at the latest version, figuring I would just confirm. I found that a change was made in response to an IESG Evaluation comment from Suresh https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/SYVAXc1dF6xUcm0OQ9xyuaknJco:

________________________________
COMMENT:

  *   Section 3.2.1

The section on sending a Refresh when the IP address does not change
needs a little bit more tightening. Given that the server would reject
the request with a mobility ticket in this case, it would be good to put
in an explicit restriction to not add the mobility ticket in the
following statement

OLD: If a client wants to refresh an existing allocation and update its
time-to-expiry or delete an existing allocation, it will send a Refresh
Request as described in Section 7.1 of [RFC5766]

NEW:
If a client wants to refresh an existing allocation and update its
time-to-expiry or delete an existing allocation, it MUST send a Refresh
Request as described in Section 7.1 of [RFC5766] and MUST NOT include a
MOBILITY-TICKET attribute.

I'm not sure if the "MUST NOT" in the latter part of the sentence is correct: Since the server will reject it anyway, I don't see the harm in including the attribute that the "MUST NOT" implies, but perhaps this is belt-and-braces protocol description. On this point, I can't complain too much.

[TR] "MUST NOT" is required to prevent the client from sending the request with the ticket which will be rejected by the server and the client will have to again re-try the request without the ticket.

However, I believe Suresh was incorrect in suggesting the first "MUST", and it should be removed. There is no harm being prevented here. "If a client wants X, it MUST send Y" is absolutely no different protocol-wise from "If a client wants X, it will send Y". The "MUST" is a misuse. I believe that this change should be undone before publication.

[TR] I can the update the line; including Suresh to see if he has any objections.

-Tiru

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