Re: [tram] Points that should be clarified in STUN-bis and TURN-bis

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Mon, 10 February 2014 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 292D11A02FA for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:21:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, 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 hjLNn6wb1esn for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:21:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C7E1A02CC for <tram@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:21:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (ringo.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:3e97:eff:fe0b:dd8a]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F42C4040F for <tram@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:21:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <52F8E066.9060309@viagenie.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:21:26 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tram@ietf.org
References: <16037E0F-62BC-484C-87C0-0C4190ED4D66@vidyo.com> <52F53C98.1070202@viagenie.ca> <CALDtMr+qgdnT5i4fiJidufGZF1CPR=puAZ+Ldqnp5t=At0AS-g@mail.gmail.com> <52F54CDC.1040502@viagenie.ca> <CALDtMrJ4J78t4PboxN5O3ZPMmt243zZ2YV5LBv-Nhz1k3E7LyQ@mail.gmail.com> <52F5550D.3020203@viagenie.ca> <CALDtMrLdxC8Vdge-XQuU0kmF1YaiRQXGZm=6mExbA6LwsnNGow@mail.gmail.com> <52F7C7E7.7050005@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <52F7C7E7.7050005@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [tram] Points that should be clarified in STUN-bis and TURN-bis
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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." <tram.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/>
List-Post: <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>, <mailto:tram-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:21:32 -0000

Le 2014-02-09 13:24, Paul Kyzivat a écrit :
> Shouldn't backward compatibility of TURN-bis servers with TURN clients
> be *mandatory*, rather than optional?

In my experience that's not how I've see IETF specs handle backward
compatibility. See STUNv1 vs STUNv2 for an example.

Now, what I do feel strongly about is that TURN-bis should not make it
impossible for a server to be backward-compatible if it wants to.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca