IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tram] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 29 April 2015 20:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 494D81A039D; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 h7JtnqSdXWFk; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A3DD1A0461; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0F9BE3E; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:44:54 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4HoifFDGdN7e; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:44:53 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.46.18.22]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79353BDD8; Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:44:53 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <554142C5.6030505@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 21:44:53 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150428212204.9453.5930.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D1667313.5436C%praspati@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1667313.5436C%praspati@cisco.com>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/9doJ990-iIU5l4uAkH8YAmheTf0>
Cc: "tram-chairs@ietf.org" <tram-chairs@ietf.org>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz@ietf.org>, "gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com" <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz.ad@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz.shepherd@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tram] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:44:58 -0000


On 29/04/15 20:18, Prashanth Patil (praspati) wrote:
>> >- Why are 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 still just examples. You need one
>> >to be MTI or you won't get interop. Indeed 4.1.2 says you
>> >SHOULD do 4.1.1! Please just bite the bullet and clearly say
>> >that 4.1.1 is MTI.
> The WG consensus was for it to be SHOULD. We¹d have to get consensus for
> it to be MTI, I suppose.
> 


I'd encourage you to really try hard on that. As you have it,
different implementations just might not work with one another
at all if developers make varying choices about 4.1.1 vs. 4.1.2
vs. something else entirely. That seems to me to be an interop
failure by the WG.

S

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email