IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Sat, 30 May 2015 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@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 93CEA1A90D2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2015 10:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 a1fZ7us1URRI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 May 2015 10:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22f.google.com (mail-pd0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 602201A90D1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 May 2015 10:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pdbnf5 with SMTP id nf5so15028607pdb.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 May 2015 10:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=gs0261Vw5gxFeocXaUnngLeSx7j6W8ervSoxk+AIvY4=; b=gPT51067kTwNwt2njTbofDYYdKX2ExfO1gZ37idQj24JiQ9kRPFDsjfYQWF8pvfML+ mGq7CqHzP7TNZnqriQEK6EVZHTgGrNucbZjS0788pHDgzij5PgAr4Fmk97k1DDTkXw7u rHvYlJLHzhAbeWiPEGlNwf+K8CpMEOgfpdVYfkUMvhr6Vwe8ygZa9ogkDaL2O4S8RTl2 WcYSTFz3qTPL3ZAwWB+ds7X1LXViTn2n8kUf/AWHDTFYvW9G1F6roVR7K1ygtkYqF14u NGgwrjlliH/Xf6w+64wQWIF3fkiRy2va1ld1CAbp4Eus9CEjaa9R3Ew7qN6KVI9cj7Jj Do8A==
X-Received: by 10.70.37.225 with SMTP id b1mr25659090pdk.35.1433007899113; Sat, 30 May 2015 10:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.107] (c-71-227-237-49.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [71.227.237.49]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p5sm9313552pdi.2.2015.05.30.10.44.57 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 30 May 2015 10:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
References: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A478607D3@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <D18DD4A0.31980%rmohanr@cisco.com> <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D243277949364CB762@MX104CL02.corp.emc.com> <556965FD.1060001@alvestrand.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <556965FD.1060001@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B00F986D-664C-4DC5-AD9E-785680DAE81B@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:44:57 -0700
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/9mZgb6H360Id-6FdNJCYobV4Xr8>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-13
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: Sat, 30 May 2015 17:45:00 -0000

On May 30, 2015, at 00:25, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
> 
> I'd prefer to limit the number of documents that try to design APIs.
> 
> Can we do something more generic, like "Applications that use the RTWEB
> transport will need to be notified when transmission ceases due to
> expiry of consent. The design of APIs to carry these notifications is
> out of scope for this document."?

[BA] Agree with Harald. Loss of STUN consent on a 5-tuple is quite different from tripping a circuit breaker. Let's not design the APIs in this document.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email