Re: [rtcweb] Question about support for RFC 6520 DTLS heartbeat

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Wed, 14 January 2015 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 E27EF1B2A65 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:19:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 zT76HNDTJeCq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:19:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2::117]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD7F1B2A64 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:19:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD3087C3BC1; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 00:19:08 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CfVUXzyhiKdM; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 00:19:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:9942:e49f:e26a:f368] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:9942:e49f:e26a:f368]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 177E57C0160; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 00:19:07 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54B6F96A.4060507@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 00:19:06 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <CAOW+2dsaAOmOS=VZe8VTRoSSjN0TAQzY2kXaOqHUCAf9jaA5Mw@mail.gmail.com> <DD273892-F62C-423C-A4FF-0BA8288A5454@lurchi.franken.de> <CABkgnnU9D7kq9R_QtLcyw58jiyYLrvLjK==X=ur1=btesdpVCw@mail.gmail.com> <1C5B610D-DA15-4DC6-82B3-E518748B1222@lurchi.franken.de> <54B6E9BC.2060203@alvestrand.no> <7CEBA9FD-CCAE-473B-92FC-7E951317CEF4@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <7CEBA9FD-CCAE-473B-92FC-7E951317CEF4@lurchi.franken.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/pOcagCnCJfVKiPye8XnelnoClCY>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Question about support for RFC 6520 DTLS heartbeat
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: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 23:19:13 -0000

Den 14. jan. 2015 23:40, skrev Michael Tuexen:
> On 14 Jan 2015, at 23:12, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>>
>> Den 14. jan. 2015 21:06, skrev Michael Tuexen:
>>> On 14 Jan 2015, at 18:17, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 14 January 2015 at 00:49, Michael Tuexen
>>>> <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> wrote:
>>>>> * DTLS does the PMTUD using DTLS heartbeats
>>>>> * SCTP does the PMTUD using SCTP HEARTBEAT and PADDING chunks
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding is the RTCWeb uses the second option as described in
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13#section-5
>>>>
>>>> SGTM.  That means we don't need to reference the DTLS heartbleed extension.
>>> It is not referenced in the RTCWeb documents, only in
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-07
>>> which allows both options.
>>
>> So which document should we put it in that we use the second option?
>> -transport, or a post-last-call update of -datachannel?
> Do we really need a change? We have in 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13#section-5
>    Incoming ICMP or ICMPv6 messages can't be processed by the SCTP
>    layer, since there is no way to identify the corresponding
>    association.  Therefore SCTP MUST support performing Path MTU
>    discovery without relying on ICMP or ICMPv6 as specified in [RFC4821]
>    using probing messages specified in [RFC4820].  The initial Path MTU
>    at the IP layer SHOULD NOT exceed 1200 bytes for IPv4 and 1280 for
>    IPv6.

Good! I misunderstood what "it is not referenced" referred to above.

> 
> In the next revision of
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-dtls-encaps-07#section-4
> there will be the sentence:
>    The path MTU discovery is performed by SCTP when SCTP over DTLS is
>    used for data channels (see Section 4 of
>    [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-data-channel]).

I think the section number is wrong - section 4 of data-channel is
requirements. (unless revised).



> 
> Best regards
> Michael
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>