Re: [rtcweb] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-13

Ted Hardie <> Thu, 28 May 2015 20:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF28F1A88E3; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id az4miMpchFGM; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AB461A88E7; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wizo1 with SMTP id o1so76707002wiz.1; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=v9xCihG3Copr+Ys0DqTt2GKP49l6twA/jkz0gKf3Y2g=; b=WgNicSkGmpqX5udiwYWbIR98K1MvffDfruq7sG5sg0X21bGr5pL0G/1m5mOJIQymfw 6d7HeVcv2oQlp+8qyiat8aRS6gN/SEg6yAWkCM8gjY+NiDTjgDhTnpABHV1wvutUUXD1 yL6L9UGthrNDPqnqt5wASue/8ifykBRaOzOxlsThcvJlIe2aKIY1C5T6G+dNydbHDSML TmJHK/bqSiCTunx8vbcx6y1/FlacU4NgRAtQYzpGeCQdF1LBlZr4ofwYK02saxHkipad nt4gAdN9Ln6Csm+QZlwmpMtJB1LRCFBngjN7TINReQeu+9XZdHd88DbVwymtmpMvl2bM G3XA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id gg16mr8612250wjc.9.1432844740404; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:25:40 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
To: "Black, David" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bb03f9cc529dc05172a29b3"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:30:58 -0700
Cc: "" <>, joel jaeggli <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-13
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 20:25:43 -0000

Hi David,

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Black, David <>

> I'd expect that even overriding RFC 5245 counts as an Update,
> because the result would be that the original RFC 5245 "MUST" requirement
> is no longer globally applicable to all uses of RFC 5245.  In other words,
> overriding RFC 5245 effectively rewrites the "MUST" to become "MUST, except
> as further specified by the consent RFC."

​So I agree with you that this must be called out, but I think "Updates" is
wrong for the draft's current intent.  I think what Martin has said amounts
to "We have chosen to follow RFC 5245 except as detailed in sections X and
Y, where we use a different set of messages to optimize the combination of
heartbeat and consent."  We are not updating RFC 5245 thereby, because we
are neither changing its core semantics nor offering to add a new, general
semantic to RFC 5245 (we could have made that choice, but are not doing so
now).  Instead of updating RFC 5245, in other words, we are limiting our
reference to it.

That should be done explicitly, and I think it should be called it
suffiiciently that a new spin of the draft likely needs a new round of
review.  But I don't think we are required to update RFC 5245 to get that

I've referred the matter to our friendly AD, and we await her reading on
next steps on this.  In either approach, however, this will get called out.


Ted HArdie​