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

"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Thu, 07 May 2015 03:57 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 810AE1A8A56 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2015 20:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 ShXq_vGaJA7F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 May 2015 20:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D83001A8946 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 May 2015 20:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2329; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1430971053; x=1432180653; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Bc6e2PkfHz5WiG/RN3sLiVuN2ukjbixTvam2FnNYzPM=; b=BzqJNnxDxtPBYSG6C1m9TYEkN7JIB3x9QqkVNyp9PqkAlY8oVy1OKBCM fO05Ujq+jdQ8rXB8rmN+nz+roVuFEu4Ika9q021vHQc1hy6EJLiQhE5HN BVMHgyzKgPAnOVqeJaz0FiFKd1C6bzzF1n4E8QEVfxW+JhJBRtKu4tqD8 Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CzBADm4UpV/5ldJa1cgwxUXgbFdwmBTAqFN04CgSc4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQgAQEBBAEBAUQnCwwEAgEIEQMBAQEBJwchBgsUCQgCBAENBYgXAxINtmCJCA2FAwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEizmCTYI4BwaEJwWLXIZMiQOBVY9Qhmkjg3ZvgUSBAQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,382,1427760000"; d="scan'208";a="147861209"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 May 2015 03:57:33 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com [173.37.183.84]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t473vXiD004326 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 May 2015 03:57:33 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.61]) by xhc-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([173.37.183.84]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 6 May 2015 22:57:32 -0500
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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: AQHQiHnxx7vdP9E8Uke/9vXk+1koEg==
Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 03:57:32 +0000
Message-ID: <D170E03C.2DAC3%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>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D7EA1AE@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
x-originating-ip: [173.39.64.98]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <51C5771FD20B9544B5FA2C958F747BF9@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/d1LVajhoE2aX_gahX12bq1YTJnU>
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 03:57:35 -0000

Hi Christer,

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

Regards,
Ram

-----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