IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Fri, 22 May 2015 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <emcho@sip-communicator.org>
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 B857E1A88DA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2015 14:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 HN8l6e6hXpZM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2015 14:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com (mail-ob0-f177.google.com [209.85.214.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4898D1A88E9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2015 14:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbea2 with SMTP id ea2so21882338obb.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2015 14:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=QeQ4SOaH0a6ngc8eTWb5CDFTeLm7azK+hT9beBss6zc=; b=eMnSm5SWFLxY0jSZWeF+d5DD/Ep9Rf6z6O9C86S+hdKeSookegoV2zedB7C/OXMK3u XXIjcM7AlzbnqWC+ve2mkXHBMP4i+9OBEX3ZCgMSRzupipIcaJzsCfCew35TThaCUj+b 5OBhnZvGOzbAVITy+2IrIBJvH6gwtNMfoB2otMxcAQm6JfGGdmOP4T5Ycd0tQvWCJFER /nvY5i7uiOIslM+q5hb91zg07t1cIxTkZEpuw0nmnXHrZULN0RS5HdKGY3bVpXu6HF84 5RMqlPGP8MBs1i1uni0GSUy0ZfBa215Ip8lmqNaMVV9L2jDEvhSXLJ1vme8uU0Pheuv2 8V4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkcYeCgFz+gNDgCkffCxF43p57ViJEJBpzCNptek/QHOsFxgIzkp54WdkqAJwxVFpuGVNTe
X-Received: by 10.202.78.142 with SMTP id c136mr5502918oib.131.1432330274778; Fri, 22 May 2015 14:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-f44.google.com (mail-oi0-f44.google.com. [209.85.218.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u141sm2027370oie.8.2015.05.22.14.31.09 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 May 2015 14:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oige141 with SMTP id e141so23238446oig.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2015 14:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.190.134 with SMTP id o128mr7838729oif.111.1432330269549; Fri, 22 May 2015 14:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.169.36 with HTTP; Fri, 22 May 2015 14:31:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUzdBO5+YoFgWrkfD+O6++C3jNDHmD7TVeUdRAy=EuTKg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOW+2dsv8CVpaKoBsUvc5MGh2s3xD2J5NiXPAnFUMOhYqSmjzQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWgpSYDjRQpk16Z0mCLietUcK1dSiNL-Y+jmFCpqan4Gg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dtDBxBBC7ToBGvP8cqYjGKUAYuR-5uL=NSjzE5iVwLRrA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUmcWUJDuems=P=vmifRGmhNvxv6=ps5O9-vmaQPYr=Ew@mail.gmail.com> <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A4785AE60@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com> <CAOW+2dt8GgcuREevwwo-PU=xzmm0MNgbyR7776bL9q9R1pa6yA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUzdBO5+YoFgWrkfD+O6++C3jNDHmD7TVeUdRAy=EuTKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 23:31:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPvvaaLdTM0pv34Rtw-tJKGAnWEzY+LmnBoHbseX42zOr8ud3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113dcceceaf3700516b2607e"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/uY0hWIlQN78XPIAcLJ6O8w5_W8A>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness
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: Fri, 22 May 2015 21:31:16 -0000

Hey Martin,

Taking a step back, could you maybe remind us exactly why we are defining
this new sort of a 30 second transaction instead of just using
traditional STUN transactions every time our periodic timer fires?

I wasn't able to find this here and there's no rationale in the draft. Was
it maybe decided at a meeting at some point?

Emil

On Friday, May 22, 2015, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22 May 2015 at 10:40, Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > [BA] If a STUN request is still being tracked (RTO has not yet expired),
> > would expiration of the 30 second timer still cause consent to expire?
> Or
> > would revocation wait until the RTO timer expires?  The latter makes more
> > sense to me.
>
> I think the former is better since it makes the consent window more
> deterministic.  The only consequence there is that an increase in RTO
> over the course of that 30s interval will increase the probability of
> failure.
>
> If we assume that a client sends every 5s, it should be receiving at
> 5s intervals too.
>


-- 
sent from my mobile

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email