Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery-11

Jouni Mäenpää <> Sun, 08 June 2014 09:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12CB31A02D0 for <>; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 02:14:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H_o6nfQvrEGb for <>; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 02:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BDAB1A02D5 for <>; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 02:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79a56d000006536-2b-5394297a5115
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 49.75.25910.A7924935; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 11:14:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 11:14:34 +0200
From: =?utf-8?B?Sm91bmkgTcOkZW5ww6TDpA==?= <>
To: Alissa Cooper <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery-11
Thread-Index: AQHPfEjSb9Qet/aqy0mFU+LLdjR/PZtm9/sA
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 09:14:34 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrCLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW6V5pRggxm/rS2mn/nLaNF01tli yc0zjA7MHl+evGTyWLLkJ5PHl8uf2QKYo7hsUlJzMstSi/TtErgy9vx+wViwRqLi0otuxgbG O+JdjJwcEgImEnfuf2aCsMUkLtxbz9bFyMUhJHCUUWJl42V2CGcRo8TqN1dYQarYBNwlpv26 wgSSEBGYwijRdekqYxcjBwezgLrEsfcBIDXCAk4SOw4cB5sqIuAsMb1jOxtIiYiAkcTl38Ig YRYBFYln88+AlfAK+ErsfbaADcQWEtCTOHXtLFicU0Bf4vv7FrC1jEDHfT+1BizOLCAucevJ fKijBSSW7DnPDGGLSrx8/I8VwlaSWHQb5DGQyzQl1u/Sh2hVlJjS/ZAdYq2gxMmZT1gmMIrN QjJ1FkLHLCQds5B0LGBkWcUoWpxanJSbbmSkl1qUmVxcnJ+nl5dasokRGE0Ht/w22MH48rnj IUYBDkYlHt6E7snBQqyJZcWVuYcYpTlYlMR5L2pUBwsJpCeWpGanphakFsUXleakFh9iZOLg lGpgnNV3V4eNfYYER9oN48NXLN54hDEH900U1N4Rx8z3KFDu2NFFHWvKJd7Yvv7evXje37rI qwe/hu/bWWycrp37dcnyJwnW+57OdHq9dYnHuQciX92aT/FIPfq4IPtojvDdi1K13p6zzxiw pD4J2D93GqNcYfKqLTt/Kqq/lp8ZL/2vLpw9aZ//BCWW4oxEQy3mouJEAPfmxvKHAgAA
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 09:14:46 -0000


Thanks for the comments! They have been addressed in the new -12 revision of the draft.

> Given that the base RELOAD spec already defines a discovery mechanism for 
> TURN, I was surprised to see TURN as the only service registered in the new 
> namespaces registry. What was the rationale for that decision?

The service discovery mechanism in the base RELOAD spec is specific to TURN. The reason why we started writing this draft was that there was interest from the working group in having also a more generic service discovery mechanism for RELOAD that could be used also for other use cases than TURN server discovery. Use cases that were discussed at that point included among others voice mail and gateway discovery. Should we add these services to the namespaces registry? ReDiR can also be used as alternative to the TURN server discovery mechanism specified in RELOAD base.


-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [] 
Sent: 30. toukokuuta 2014 23:50
Subject: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery-11

I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. It’s in good shape. I have one question before I issue the last call, though.
Given that the base RELOAD spec already defines a discovery mechanism for TURN, I was surprised to see TURN as the only service registered in the new namespaces registry. What was the rationale for that decision?

Some nits to be resolved with any last call comments:

Section 2:

Section 4.2:
"It is RECOMMENDED that Lstart is set to 2.”

It would be helpful to add some text here to motivate the decision to use
2 as the recommendation.

Section 4.5
s/note: within the entire tree/note: within the entire tree node/

Section 5:
s/every kind which is storable/every Kind which is storable/

Section 6:
s/REDIR kind/REDIR Kind/

Section 8:
s/"REDIR” kind/"REDIR” Kind/

Section 9:
Seems like this section deserves a mention of the fact that a new access control policy had to be defined for Redir.

Section 10.4:
s/IANA SHALL create/IANA is requested to create/