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

"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Mon, 11 May 2015 13:53 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 A807F1A8886 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 06:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, 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 Aniewg--02v8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 May 2015 06:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 610861A8870 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 May 2015 06:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=120100; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1431352408; x=1432562008; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=dWZ5V3tUMMV7k7A+7gkE//SiBJ7ZyTdY7MyPG1HvOQc=; b=RsbuW/3KDMGnpXRl0fHDuRYHvYipKT/iasE53pXVibm5ASuIGktUA8tU Pyol1p72XWic3nUtAo6aSQkAw57wDKcAkH8hW+BPovqiUKAujL++LvT3E a1xw6YgupxT/VN/GSEBTgwGog+9zmyq9UqGVnpdypSa3a0t9ZEPGPGApo E=;
X-Files: Diff_ draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-12.txt - draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-13.txt.html, draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-13.txt : 60333, 18817
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DFBQDTs1BV/4kNJK1cgw9UXgaDGIIJvyIqCYE1GQELhTVOAhyBFDgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhCABAQEEAQEBFxMaJwsMBAIBCBEDAQEBARULAQYFAgIfBgsUCQgCBAENBQ4Nh3wDEg2XDJx/BoUYiQYNhRIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXizmCTYFVEQEbJQ0CAgEGBgSCWIFLAQSHF4dRg1WCBYIZgkaBdjSBVYEkEyuDHIppgxuDVSOBXQmCEW8BgQICAwICFwIEHIEBAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,407,1427760000"; d="txt'?html'217?scan'217,208,217";a="148864869"
Received: from alln-core-4.cisco.com ([173.36.13.137]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 May 2015 13:53:26 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by alln-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4BDrQ18007803 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 11 May 2015 13:53:26 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.121]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 11 May 2015 08:53:26 -0500
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-11
Thread-Index: AQHQi/HaNRq6SQBuQUqpM992EE341A==
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 13:53:25 +0000
Message-ID: <D176B223.2E5DC%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> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D7EA1AE@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <D170E03C.2DAC3%rmohanr@cisco.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D7EB649@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A47833F10@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D7EBB8D@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <D1712C03.2DDBA%rmohanr@cisco.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D7EBCDD@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <D8BB2A42-3840-4C60-A7AC-503E359F8662@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <D8BB2A42-3840-4C60-A7AC-503E359F8662@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: [10.65.38.196]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_003_D176B2232E5DCrmohanrciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Gx_gi8etM8V1_gsZfy6iptVIndk>
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: Mon, 11 May 2015 13:53:34 -0000

Attached is the diffs with comment from Christer incorporated. Please let
me know if any one else has comments. If not I will publish this diff as a
new revision.

Regards,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Date: Friday, 8 May 2015 6:41 pm
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com>, "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)"
<tireddy@cisco.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>,
"rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation:
draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-11

>Ok with me.
>Alissa
>
>On May 7, 2015, at 2:49 AM, Christer Holmberg
><christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The text looks ok, but I think we can simplify/clarify it a little.
>> 
>> For example, the usage of "flow" is a little strange, since we
>>explicitly say that no media is sent :)
>> 
>> Also, "failure" is the wrong wording in my opinion, because there is no
>>failure.
>> 
>> What about:
>> 
>>   An endpoint that is not sending any application data does not need to
>>   maintain consent. However, not sending any traffic could cause NAT or
>>   firewall mappings to expire.  Furthermore, having one peer unable to
>>send 
>>   is detrimental to many protocols.  Absent better information about
>>the 
>>   network, if an endpoint needs to ensure its NAT or firewall mappings
>>do
>>   not expire, it can be done using keepalive or  other techniques (see
>>   Section 10 of [RFC5245] and see [RFC6263]).
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Christer
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) [mailto:rmohanr@cisco.com]
>> Sent: 7. toukokuuta 2015 12:19
>> To: Christer Holmberg; Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); Alissa Cooper;
>>Martin Thomson
>> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation:
>>draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-11
>> 
>> Hi Christer,
>> 
>> How about the below text. Does it sound better ?
>> 
>> OLD:
>> 
>>   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.  Absent better
>>   information about the network, an endpoint SHOULD maintain consent if
>>   there is any possibility that a flow might be needed again.
>> 
>> NEW:
>> 
>>   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.  Absent better
>>   information about the network, if an endpoint needs to ensure its NAT
>>   or firewall mappings persist which can be done using keepalive or
>>   other techniques (see Section 10 of [RFC5245] and see [RFC6263]).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ram
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
>> Date: Thursday, 7 May 2015 2:40 pm
>> To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>, Cisco Employee
>><rmohanr@cisco.com>, 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,
>>> 
>>>>>> 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?
>>>> 
>>>> ICE keepalives or consent is only required for candidate pairs
>>>> selected for media,
>>> 
>>> Correct. But, you may have multiple candidate pairs "selected for
>>> media", but that doesn't mean you are sending media on all of them.
>>> Very likely you are, at any given time, only sending media on one of
>>>them.
>>> 
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#section-10 mandates sending
>>>> keepalives if no packet is sent on the candidate pair ICE is using
>>>>for 
>>>> a media component for Tr seconds. STUN Binding Indication or consent
>>>> can be used for keepalives.
>>> 
>>> Correct. My issue is why there should be a "SHOULD send consent" on
>>> candidate pairs currently not used for sending media. In such case,
>>> only the NAT bindings need to be maintained, and the keep-alives take
>>> care of that.
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>> 
>