Re: [tram] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tram-alpn-06.txt> (Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) labels for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Usages) to Proposed Standard

Hi Spencer - 

Do you want that -07 prior to IESG review?  We assumed we should wait to make all changes after IESG review.  We're flexible and can do it either way.  Just let us know.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

> On Oct 27, 2014, at 12:44 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, October 15, 2014, Prashanth Patil (praspati) <praspati@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
> The concerning use cases described in the draft were to indicate that the new ALPN identifiers could also be considered for WebRTC firewall traversal (as pointed out in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-03#section-4.2).
> End to end identifier negotiation is still the goal of this draft i.e. to negotiate the use of stun and its usages.
> 
> We'll remove these use cases and stick to end to end negotiation.
> 
> Just so I'm clear, should I be expecting a -07?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Spencer
>  
> -Prashanth
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 15:41, Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org> wrote:
> 
> >> Is your concern specific to TRAM's proposed use of ALPN, or does it apply to
> >> ALPN in general?
> 
> > In general I think the IETF should be promoting the end-to-end
> > principle. My concern is specifically about TRAM implicitly endorsing
> > the idea that the network should be applying policy like that.
> 
> > (There's also a fair amount of irony in that fact that the second
> > example suggests ALPN be used to get around the fact that networks
> > often discriminate based on TCP port numbers, and the first example is
> > suggesting that networks do exactly the same thing to ALPN
> > identifiers.)
> 
> > Cheers
> 
> > AGL
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram