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

["Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alissa/All,

I just published the revision that address below comments. Link -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness/
Diff - 
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness

Regards,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Cisco Employee <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 11 May 2015 7:24 pm
To: Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>, Christer Holmberg
<[e-mail]>, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation:
draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-11

>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 <[e-mail]>
>Date: Friday, 8 May 2015 6:41 pm
>To: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
>Cc: Cisco Employee <[e-mail]>, "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)"
><[e-mail]>, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>,
>"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>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
>><[e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 7. toukokuuta 2015 12:19
>>> To: Christer Holmberg; Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); Alissa Cooper;
>>>Martin Thomson
>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>> Date: Thursday, 7 May 2015 2:40 pm
>>> To: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <[e-mail]>, Cisco Employee
>>><[e-mail]>, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>, Martin Thomson
>>><[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>>> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Date: Wednesday, 6 May 2015 12:23 pm
>>>>> To: Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>, Martin Thomson
>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>>>>> 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alissa
>>>>>> Cooper
>>>>>> Sent: 2. toukokuuta 2015 2:20
>>>>>> To: Martin Thomson
>>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation:
>>>>>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-11
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 1, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Martin Thomson
>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 30 April 2015 at 17:32, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>> 
>>
>