Re: [tram] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-16

Peter Saint-Andre <> Mon, 23 April 2018 03:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88378126FB3 for <>; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JXF9wf6ylndH for <>; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 950A3126DED for <>; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e20-v6so8977968itc.1 for <>; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MKZzNFz0qNWfyNolYcI4P5s0xqV+tsMh23zcuitAH1M=; b=H687+YsXsYNnz8f3A0SU4011ewMfQ44BklgW9ATSILuHy5vChEJIKHpiizTBIrFiY4 dNwprLlh0gNBY6/wg44rnJ4DfvA8A1E6YbWKg+5HVbnMSOgEu2EQ1l5MDvF+9yHMFnsp WU/YGpJ3hE1Ax7Vg46jA4ozNJE61y09lwwbBM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MKZzNFz0qNWfyNolYcI4P5s0xqV+tsMh23zcuitAH1M=; b=dzVMQHHHwbcLrPko6ti4dXZHHiZcASbFH5KQYhe0e8PGI5Qwm0oJaG9m0tFGKZc9DW zeh7rGGwkVnXm/1Zcd9ncU+LgHcLDYyov7W1AbfeDY6U4mYNI1PpWQKQqtp5Z6OXVsxJ 1RCPf2uWPLuCxyKDh3Xbrq2f7uZ4NTb4zRXqzaB3/eUZwSwtp9VtfZeEbTZqLd0olQzh kvT3/oNimweDIz0VWYEwE0xP5QYzWrD5mDj7FkKwMJ/p3vThazjVbwnLjx4mX60LgWTR xYidltecV9csdBpqOGmai2fqKDf30M3pAo3DbjrGyg4pMUu54PFogEQ6A2y3foBvpg8k FXnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAc5oDneMLyzuKJqtLWlcnvN+pqxb38FbeFsRtZy2URcWUMbov1 7A1VxGE5glFqFj/RirDrJAV7vw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48Ta84BuBAdUttmgt0oIkH1LpMrAGHMebsvz2cbscRNS+koHIZASA+mISZbWaqnNeTNAQg4zQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a24:730e:: with SMTP id y14-v6mr13111024itb.45.1524454236939; Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local ([]) by with ESMTPSA id k141-v6sm3556604ite.41.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 21:30:34 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tram] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-16
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussing the creation of a Turn Revised And Modernized \(TRAM\) WG, which goal is to consolidate the various initiatives to update TURN and STUN." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 03:30:41 -0000

On 4/21/18 3:39 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:

>>>>> Section 6.3.4 states:
>>>>>    o  If the error code is 500 through 599, the client MAY resend the
>>>>>       request; clients that do so MUST limit the number of times they do
>>>>>       this.
>>>>> It is reasonable to provide guidance as to the number of re-sends?
>>>> Same issue here, that's a section that is unmodified from RFC 5389. 
>>> I understand. Now is our chance to fix it. :-)
>>>>  As long as the client does not enter an endless loop of retransmission, choosing different numbers of re-sends does not affect interoperability.
>>> Choosing different numbers is OK, but choosing an infinite number is
>>> not. Can we provide guidance as to how many is too many? 10? 50? 100?
>> Well, the text already states that an infinite number of of re-sends is not compliant.  Anyway, I am not sure how to determine a reasonable number, but I'll try.
> I chose 4 as the maximum number of retransmissions.  I based that on error code 508 in TURN that defines a delay of 60 seconds between retransmissions, so we now get a delay of 5 minutes before the client gives up in case of insufficient capacity.  The new text reads like this:
> "o  If the error code is 500 through 599, the client MAY resend the
>     request; clients that do so MUST limit the number of times they do
>     this.  Unless a specific error code specifies a different value,
>     the number of retransmissions MUST be limited to 4."

"SHOULD be limited to 4" seems fine, but MUST is OK too.

Thanks for looking into this and making the fix.