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

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 07 May 2015 05:33 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 355841ACCEE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2015 22:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 d2HTDDNdV6e3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2015 22:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBD021ACD6A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2015 22:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f79b66d000001131-c6-554af92eb3cb
Received: from ESESSHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 72.9F.04401.E29FA455; Thu, 7 May 2015 07:33:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.61]) by ESESSHC001.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.21]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Thu, 7 May 2015 07:33:34 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-11
Thread-Index: AQHQg6ZCX3ABhhDJOU+APBu3+BbmbJ1nNjYAgABrhwCABulYUIABP/oAgAA7v/A=
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 05:33:33 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D7EB649@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <3B27E16C-2AD7-427B-864C-741F38575B97@cooperw.in> <CABkgnnU=NeP7MzqxE1Mg+ZN8EZf=3FtayyLP1Q-z=6vaPUtAuA@mail.gmail.com> <3BE7E012-A474-4CEA-889A-B611EEFC4AEC@cooperw.in> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D7EA1AE@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <D170E03C.2DAC3%rmohanr@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D170E03C.2DAC3%rmohanr@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.16]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7eT69Qg5ePNS2mn/nLaHHtzD9G i+VdOxgt1v5rZ3dg8ZjyeyOrx5cnL5k8ds66y+6xZMlPpgCWKC6blNSczLLUIn27BK6M3UfW MhV8E6m4fmYlWwPjLMEuRk4OCQETid8Pj7BC2GISF+6tZ+ti5OIQEjjKKDFvZgMLSEJIYBGj xL5b1l2MHBxsAhYS3f+0QcIiAvUSB6efYgKxmQXUJe4sPscOUiIsECSx+gwvREmwxOYdr1hA wiICfhI/ThmDmCwCKhJnt3KDVPAK+EocP3WfHWLpQiaJvuuzmUBqOAX0JW7P9QGpYQQ67Pup NVCLxCVuPZnPBHGwgMSSPeeZIWxRiZeP/0E9oiix82w7M0S9nsSNqVPYIGxtiWULXzND7BWU ODnzCcsERrFZSMbOQtIyC0nLLCQtCxhZVjGKFqcWJ+WmGxnrpRZlJhcX5+fp5aWWbGIExtfB Lb9VdzBefuN4iFGAg1GJh1fhuFeoEGtiWXFl7iFGaQ4WJXFeO+NDIUIC6YklqdmpqQWpRfFF pTmpxYcYmTg4pRoYWdnaIia75GzJLWC8Ytb0/4Wg1A6htfzGbGuc9kYoh0+SPvNKZYJm+MSY Hc/vN9n+q19X0NJ95clVRsGoQwIKLxd7TmYxT4ybtGtqi8i/WezOTA2MM70ePFVNyHLyjNuQ 13Dln9GRIr6SvFul+TOOHn+ymb+md3122+POcPdXardEvSoOpRYqsRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAxIWF lJACAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/7dkqgFkcEI5oV3wC0byL3si50DQ>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 07 May 2015 05:33:45 -0000

Hi,

>Martin¹s statement says SHOULD here and does not mandate. ICE keepalives could also be used to keep the NAT state

There needs to be a good justification for a SHOULD, and consent was never intended for NAT keep-alives.

Also keep in mind that, with the "virtual connection" concept, there might be a big number of ICE connections - some of which you may never use. Why send consent on those, if there is no media?

Regards,

Christer



-----Original Message-----
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Date: Wednesday, 6 May 2015 12:23 pm
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, 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

>Hi,
>
>I don't think you need to continue doing consent because of NAT issues, 
>if you are sending normal STUN keep-alives.
>
>Regards,
>
>Christer
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alissa 
>Cooper
>Sent: 2. toukokuuta 2015 2:20
>To: Martin Thomson
>Cc: 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb