Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-11
"Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com> Thu, 14 May 2015 03:18 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 D6B961B32B8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 20:18:33 -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 E8XBibpO1EXY for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 May 2015 20:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C27FA1B32BC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 May 2015 20:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11622; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1431573511; x=1432783111; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=8f+Z7LWH6Lrn7dD/JjEun412aTUc+tqji03BuTrGj4M=; b=a+IyoP/toZ72maAivuj11zaOCuEKuRQhN8rTaAiVbJq2lWvsS9AjYJOc OiWOdWirzrLMmNJDj1WhYI7HGEotg3q0ppY5HPi8RZraOf334P4cv6zsI J0x6C7Y9dnXc/ROJJxmxjWfZHfsAMmK+V1h+glR/RPp4OxbE+jqPJixHC k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AlBQAaE1RV/4cNJK1cgw9UXgaDGMMdDIU1TgIcgRxMAQEBAQEBgQuEIAEBAQQBAQExEycXBAIBCBEDAQEBAQQjBQICHwYLFAkIAgQBEogXAxINmHOcfwaFGZoDDYR8AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBF4Ebih+CTYIFOgaCXIFLBZJbhCeEdYFVgSU+gyWKeIZ2I4FmghFvgUWBAQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,425,1427760000"; d="scan'208";a="419640212"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 May 2015 03:18:29 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t4E3ITQd004154 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 14 May 2015 03:18:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.121]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 13 May 2015 22:18:29 -0500
From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-11
Thread-Index: AQHQjfSlNRq6SQBuQUqpM992EE341A==
Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 03:18:28 +0000
Message-ID: <D17A103F.2F093%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> <D176B223.2E5DC%rmohanr@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D176B223.2E5DC%rmohanr@cisco.com>
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: [10.65.78.73]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <195EF8E033082F42924A596451B771BC@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/dEH3WGzpS03ynMzoDuXPa3a3EIY>
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, 14 May 2015 03:18:34 -0000
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 <rmohanr@cisco.com> Date: Monday, 11 May 2015 7:24 pm To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Cc: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org> 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 <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 >>> >> >
- [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-co… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [rtcweb] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stu… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)