Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-muthu-behave-consent-freshness-03.txt

"Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com> Thu, 28 February 2013 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mperumal@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F2E21F8C1F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:45:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pKXCATEyxrNT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:45:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EAC621F8C1E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:45:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4520; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362073532; x=1363283132; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=//IFzMkeundj6FeZPIywrh3qG4PepMAA1CKVLMhmv9Q=; b=H50tNbl1L1tFI84lpiMatQKqYu4HITwrzUScdtcAZoA6j3V8hAL/6Mhy jjo6Tftd/miEwuJZ/muFGmeLCGbyqFmk9pzOTs9dUjoYEdzkoX+cJ82jo yIz0p3xPacKtviD+DbLqzhP6Ftsm+4thTsrx0+lUwKugSKnj4asUOemGL Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAFmXL1GtJXHA/2dsb2JhbABFhk+7XQ1vFnOCHwEBAQQjEUUMBAIBCBEEAQEDAgYdAwICAh8RFAEHAQgCBA4FCAESh2YDDwyvIoh6DYkLgSOLGYEBFoEQJgsHBoInMmEDlGSNMIUXgwiBcjU
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,755,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="182312382"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Feb 2013 17:45:29 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r1SHjSut018817 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:45:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.4.47]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:45:28 -0600
From: "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)" <mperumal@cisco.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-muthu-behave-consent-freshness-03.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOE4XKyq5tIRCRdE+e+ktRkS0KtZiMOJFwgAEHPID///6IUIABRLuAgAEGxfA=
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:45:28 +0000
Message-ID: <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE224029975@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
References: <20130225182705.666.1653.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE224023E19@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> <CABkgnnXkBSTNPDw-e=RMOU9UsucPeQyFya6w0R83CZvUqww_-A@mail.gmail.com> <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE22402509E@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> <CABkgnnV3Oo2B8xyeb1=-3pu0b81Xhk5D_-TYmu3Swmsi-JY8Lw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnV3Oo2B8xyeb1=-3pu0b81Xhk5D_-TYmu3Swmsi-JY8Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.65.38]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-muthu-behave-consent-freshness-03.txt
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 28 Feb 2013 17:45:34 -0000

|Imagine that you are running Tr at 1 second, with a complete
|transaction required before you do anything.  Do you run 39 in
|parallel with hundreds of checks, or do you not create a new
|transaction when another is outstanding?  

Yes, that's what I had in mind -- don't generate a new request when a response is pending. A couple more constraints that could be useful:
- Don't generate a new consent freshness check when no traffic was sent over the last x sec (could save battery).
- Don't generate a new liveness check if any traffic was received since the last liveness check.

I had a crude algorithm:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg05000.html

Need to refine further.

|We've discussed tightening the timers once the session is live.  We've
|also discussed tightening timers when the session is starting.  Both
|of which I would have expected to see in the document as proposed
|solutions.

Not sure I understood. Do you mean tightening the backoff timer?

|I think that the document only needs to talk in terms of "checks" or
|Binding requests rather than transactions.

How would that help? They would degenerate into transactions, anyway.

Muthu

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
|Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:14 AM
|To: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)
|Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
|Subject: Re: [rtcweb] FW: I-D Action: draft-muthu-behave-consent-freshness-03.txt
|
|> In its current form, the draft uses the STUN transaction as defined in RFC5389, which implies the
|requests are retransmitted until a response is received, or until a total of 7 requests have been sent
|(assuming no hard ICMP error is received). So, reporting a consent freshness failure is sufficiently
|guarded against transitory network failures.
|
|That's far too much.  And the backoff is designed for completely
|different situations.
|
|Imagine that you are running Tr at 1 second, with a complete
|transaction required before you do anything.  Do you run 39 in
|parallel with hundreds of checks, or do you not create a new
|transaction when another is outstanding?  Keep in mind that the latter
|choice means that you aren't really sending a check every second any
|more, despite agreeing to do so.
|
|> However, with the default 500 ms RTO recommended in RFC5389, it would take 39.5 sec for the
|transaction to timeout -- this was considered too long to declare a consent freshness failure.
|
|We've discussed tightening the timers once the session is live.  We've
|also discussed tightening timers when the session is starting.  Both
|of which I would have expected to see in the document as proposed
|solutions.
|
|> One option could be to define a new STUN transaction that doesn't do the exponential backoff for
|retransmission, but instead retransmits at periodic intervals and declare failure if there is no
|response after sending a bunch of them, as you are suggesting. But, I am not sure at this point how
|that would be both superior compared to the transaction defined in RFC5389 and sufficiently guard
|against transitory network failures.
|
|I think that the document only needs to talk in terms of "checks" or
|Binding requests rather than transactions.