Re: [rtcweb] Consent Freshness: Some suggestions for editorial clarifications

Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com> Thu, 25 September 2014 08:19 UTC

Return-Path: <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 559701A02F9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 01:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 3Gw7tTvqRit2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 01:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACC6A1A02E8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 01:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id z2so8849973wiv.8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 01:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LroShMiLrYzjAXVXVLIdhPi/gmY4LY1b3QvHlU1upIU=; b=vVy9J+Dkha33n7yv7HPtUC0tyBrLQyPE+wk9GEBVKj9EHWLqVAo2Vl8RFaeQ/f9KM5 Gsorid0f5g45Fc5Ne6SZbPbBpnb46CIf3GKWpbpheDUAKKLVEnX5E7n/pwm0bDu0UjdR V7QKLP1K8xKd/TvNNLm1QXhe6SuP+VI7TSEp4pu27UwVpdOgIzC5hvY3ho82Yr2PpwLj 8ugPZQ9F0SSI7eTcaQTYbesPTiH3/whx+93kBjQQA0Zc6UIxi27wbIXl42TMbpw/tfQB 3vBRYKRKG1ddxwBvtqALnso0fOu3Mx7nyUuJOhU7Hy7q5xEIiu1o6lsrKneWKqeAhYLM zQVg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.95.8 with SMTP id dg8mr14260306wjb.1.1411633140235; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 01:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.197.168 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 01:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D44E72A@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D44E72A@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 13:49:00 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKz0y8xB6VaJtcABPhyP2FMr13_ZGZNFzafaUs590ym2T5OPyA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal <muthu.arul@gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bdc0f56e0856b0503df7322"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/-mri_B4rTwNe1bL8P0NWntXeMC4
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Consent Freshness: Some suggestions for editorial clarifications
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:19:04 -0000

Hi Christer,

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>
>
> Based on feedback I receive from implementers, there are a couple of
> clarifications I think would be useful in the consent freshness draft.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Q1:
>
> -----
>
>
>
> As STUN binding requests for consent are sent unreliably, and are not
> re-transmitted, I think it would be useful to have some explicit text
> saying that individual requests (and/or their associated responses) may get
> lost in the network, and that a sender must be prepared that a response to
> such requestmay never arrive.
>
>
>
> It may be obvious to us, but maybe not as clear to the first-time reader
> of the draft.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Q2:
>
> -----
>
>
>
> Section 4.1 says:
>
>
>
> “That is, if a valid STUN binding response corresponding to one of the
> STUN requests sent in the last 30 seconds
>
>                 has not been received from the remote peer's Transport
> Address, the endpoint MUST cease transmission on that 5-tuple.”
>
>
>
> First, I suggest the following clarification:
>
>
>
> s/”to one of the STUN requests sent in the last 30 seconds”/”to one of the
> STUN requests (not necessarily the last one) sent in the last 30 seconds”.
>
>
>
>
>
> Second, there is no explicit text on for how long the client keeps the
> STUN transaction alive, i.e. for how long it waits for the response.
>
>
>
> I assume that, after 30 seconds, the client does not need to maintain
> state and wait for the response anymore.
>

​My understanding is that the sender doesn't need remember the request for
30 sec, instead it needs to remember it only for RTT duration. If a
matching response is received within that duration you have a 'hit'. If
there is no 'hit' over the last 30 sec, consent expires.

I agree this isn't clear in the current version.

Muthu


I think it would be useful to explicitly indicate that, and also say that
> responses that are received after that time must be discarded.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>