Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Tue, 09 August 2016 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F2E12B04D; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 09:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.267
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.267 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=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qti.qualcomm.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 qd00DBO8ADDh; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 09:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6573612B032; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 09:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1470758763; x=1502294763; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=29e9xekSNX5Ax4z3+g/ektDaXesTZVgT1qNPxDymvAs=; b=Wm6nR0RQ4f2H8jkYbB0qTpMR5Cf42R73rSGoeO14QvMGDgeEJ9wgs2w2 bEQWfbcP5w06KU6yX4OcP+fwtdraOu2+He/vVF7amYZdUaZm0p63XTMNj mCsZvXh/ykOvT0Z+ZRnU5usJgfM7VhP8cAqMpp6GP+qISgltxN1uiJUsQ E=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,495,1464678000"; d="scan'208,217";a="310474869"
Received: from unknown (HELO Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com) ([10.53.140.110]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 09 Aug 2016 09:06:03 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5700,7163,8252"; a="1201736471"
X-Amp-Result: CLEAN
Received: from nasanexm01f.na.qualcomm.com ([10.85.0.32]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 09 Aug 2016 09:06:02 -0700
Received: from [10.64.161.115] (10.80.80.8) by NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 09:06:01 -0700
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: Tirumaleswar Reddy <tireddy@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 11:05:57 -0500
Message-ID: <0EF98A4A-04FD-4E34-AD1E-A6E5F5D246D9@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <38321ad067a84b47a29a525d05185a7e@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com>
References: <0D5A57AB-E9A5-47C9-AB58-77D32BB97B1B@qti.qualcomm.com> <38321ad067a84b47a29a525d05185a7e@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_0ADDBE45-3634-4DEB-813A-98480A2319D9_="
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5239)
X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8]
X-ClientProxiedBy: NASANEXM01B.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.82) To NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/b9CDIJjJxkJQ668sULZDELyvMM8>
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>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 16:06:05 -0000

Thanks for the response Tiru. Trimming down to the one open issue below; 
everything else looks perfect:

On 8 Aug 2016, at 23:50, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) wrote:

>> 3.1.2 - Change "MUST" to "will" both times in the second paragraph.

I presume you're OK with those changes?

>> The last sentence of the section I don't understand; it doesn't seem 
>> to have any interoperability implications, and I don't see why the 
>> client can't examine the ticket in any way it wants. Either justify 
>> the sentence or delete it.
>
> [TR] Even if the client examines the ticket there is no guarantee that 
> it will be able decode its fields. This line is added to suggest that 
> there is no need for the client to examine the ticket.

Well, "no need" is very different than "MUST NOT". If you really want to 
keep the sentence (and I still think you could just delete it), I would 
suggest simply changing it to something like: "Note: There is no 
guarantee that the fields in the ticket are going to be decodable to a 
client, and therefore attempts by a client to examine the ticket are 
unlikely to be useful."

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