IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-11

"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Mon, 04 May 2015 05:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rmohanr@cisco.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 C2AA61A00A7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 May 2015 22:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -13.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 9QThWFi7WGOj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 May 2015 22:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A3D21A9136 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 May 2015 22:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=135664; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1430717233; x=1431926833; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=52VwI7XoOq4qXVriBJYuFaIiAOJZhatyHJZASE3Guh8=; b=Zc+vLlC/bqUGZA9ioMWLImAYuxUiazy0ZbZCjc6CozT+0A6eTpZ+DWFK zglijFDce5aAwqnNaj2gbVKBdf3KmYyaTClExnoi1VUILFYoF1sbr5Zef rCPRlerYpUlkFyq9ErxLipGP3xBYnwlw1nv4wZ/IpTNr+uDSiCLBcICo1 M=;
X-Files: Diff_ draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-11.txt - draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-12.txt.html, draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-12.txt : 78116, 18747
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BmBQCoAkdV/4YNJK1cgwxTXAWFIcAVgWYZAQuFNE4CgUVMAQEBAQEBgQuEIAEBAQQBAQEXExonFwQCAQgRAwECARULAQ0CHwYLHQgCBAESDg2HfAMRDbZZiD8NhR4BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXizmCTYFVEQEbGwoNAgMGBgSEIwWHCoc5g0qBfIIVgkaBcjSBVYEkEiuDFYpIgw6DUiOBXAmCD28BgQECAwICFwIEHIEBAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,364,1427760000"; d="txt'?html'217?scan'217,208,217";a="8936413"
Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 May 2015 05:27:11 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com [173.36.12.85]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t445RBvU014956 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 4 May 2015 05:27:11 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.61]) by xhc-aln-x11.cisco.com ([173.36.12.85]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 4 May 2015 00:27:11 -0500
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-11
Thread-Index: AQHQhir4Ztq5gzqSOE6Em1OL5/PJLg==
Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 05:27:10 +0000
Message-ID: <D16D00E6.2D555%rmohanr@cisco.com>
References: <3B27E16C-2AD7-427B-864C-741F38575B97@cooperw.in> <CABkgnnU=NeP7MzqxE1Mg+ZN8EZf=3FtayyLP1Q-z=6vaPUtAuA@mail.gmail.com> <3BE7E012-A474-4CEA-889A-B611EEFC4AEC@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <3BE7E012-A474-4CEA-889A-B611EEFC4AEC@cooperw.in>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
x-originating-ip: [173.39.64.241]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_003_D16D00E62D555rmohanrciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/5i_7Px2r7MFY9tTM_8YThlsLJhs>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-11
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: Mon, 04 May 2015 05:27:18 -0000

Hi Alissa/ all,

Attached is the diffs with the comments incorporated. Please let me know
if its fine.

Regards,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Date: Saturday, 2 May 2015 4:49 am
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation:
draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-11

>
>On May 1, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On 30 April 2015 at 17:32, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
>>> "An endpoint that is not sending any application data does not need to
>>>   maintain consent.  However, failure to send could cause any NAT or
>>>   firewall mappings for the flow to expire.  Furthermore, having one
>>>   peer unable to send is detrimental to many protocols."
>>> 
>>> It sounds like the unstated implication here is that if you are such
>>>an endpoint, you should keep doing consent checks anyway to maintain
>>>consent. Should that be stated explicitly, or am I misunderstanding?
>> 
>> Can you tell that this is my text?
>> 
>> Yep, the unspoken implication is that if you stop maintaining consent,
>> a flow is highly likely to break.  I'm OK with making that explicit.
>> 
>> ... .  Absent better information about the network, an endpoint SHOULD
>> maintain consent if there is any possibility that a flow might be
>> needed again.
>
>WFM
>
>> 
>> (Thanks for the suggestion on Sec7.  I wasn't happy with it before.)
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email