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

My intent was to highlight the potential need for re-use. This loses that,
so it ends up saying nothing really. It is otherwise ok in the sense that
it concentrates on the keep alive aspect.
On May 7, 2015 4:49 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
>
>