Re: [tram] Chime in on attched redlined version-12 WAS: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-12.txt

[Karl Stahl <[e-mail]>]

Authors: Tiru, Prashpanth, Dan (still there?),

 

Reading the below (not mentioning TWO TURN servers, saying “TURN anycast
server”) and Tiru’s 7th of February pointer to       

“ <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7094#section-3.4>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7094#section-3.4 also discusses similar
mechanism.”:

 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7094#section-3.4> 3.4.  Service Discovery

   Applications able to tolerate an extra round-trip time (RTT) to learn

   a unicast destination address for multipacket exchanges might safely

   use anycast destination addresses for service instance discovery.

   For example, "instance discovery" messages are sent to an anycast

   destination address, and a reply is subsequently sent from the unique

   unicast source address of the interface that received the discovery

   message, or a reply is sent from the anycast source address of the

   interface that received the message, containing the unicast address

   to be used to invoke the service.  Only the latter of these will

   avoid potential NAT binding and stateful firewall issues.

 

I think the current “pointing at each other in circles” comes from that we
have not realized how Anycast routing is done: 

 

An server is installed at a an IP address. We call it anycast server because
it is reachable by an anycast address. The forwarder (router/firewall) that
knows where the anycast server is located *exchanges the destination address
in the packet* (if the server is at a unicast address) to make it arrive at
the server and therefore the server cannot know how it originally was
addressed (by an anycast address or by its unicast address).

 

So it is a ROUTING ISSUE, not a TURN server issue (“not all TURN servers may
support anycast.” As the text under “3. Discovery Procedure” says is
confusing), that the TURN server cannot know whether it is in the discovery
phase (and shall respond with the error 300) or in the usage phase (and
actually shall make an Allocation).

 

I think seeing this as a TURN server issue has made us confused. By sending
a Binding (instead of Allocate) during the discovery phase, the TURN server
knows it is in discovery phase and can respond with the error 300
(containing the TURN server’s unicast address). 

 

Seeing/Understanding this, isn’t that an opening so authors can adjust the
version -12 text and we can move forward?

 

/Karl

 

 

Från: tram [ <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]]
För Karl Stahl
Skickat: den 13 februari 2017 20:53
Till: 'Brandon Williams'; 'Simon Perreault'; 'Spencer Dawkins at IETF';
<mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
Kopia: 'Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)'
Ämne: Re: [tram] Chime in on attched redlined version-12 WAS: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-12.txt

 

Regarding Anycast:

 

Brandon, previous email > I haven't read the redlined version 

--- The anycast related redlining of version -12 is the same as I did in
version -10 that you read and discussed/commented with one thing that I
addressed. Let's not make too much of that, since there is no common
understanding of what the Author's anycast method actually is. 

 

 

Reality is: 

- Tiru says he agrees with other (Simon, but that discussion was based
around the "Two LAN IP TURN server(s)" method assumption) but Tiru gave a
pointer in another direction.

- Prashpanth extra text during discuss (in version -12 now) rather points at
another interpretation, using only one TURN server, that answers
differently, depending on when accessed.

- And Brandon seems to point to Tiru

- Dissident me highlighted the flaws already in version -08 (when reading
the “not all TURN servers may support anycast.” statement) but Author's did
not respond

 

Checking History:

 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-patil-tram-turn-serv-disc-00 

When a client requires TURN services, it sends a TURN allocate

   request to the assigned anycast address.  The responding TURN anycast

   server puts its own unicast address as the source address in the

   reply message.  For subsequent

 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-patil-tram-turn-serv-disc-01 

When a client requires TURN services, it sends a TURN allocate

   request to the assigned anycast address.  The TURN anycast server

   responds with a 300 (Try Alternate) error as described in [RFC5766];

   The response contains the TURN unicast address in the ALTERNATE-

   SERVER attribute.  For subsequent

 

The “not all TURN servers may support anycast.” statement appeared later in 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-02 

 

Nothing of this indicates that the Authors mean the "Two LAN IP TURN
server(s)" method Simon and I discussed and the continued silence from the
Author’s just confirms that -12 lacks an anycast specification that can be
implemented and used. Further, version -12 lacks deployment considerations.

 

The red-lined version -12 defines the “say Binding instead of Allocate”
anycast method (working with one TURN server and in all situations), it
includes deployment considerations, and is a way to get consensus of
something defined.

 

/Karl

 

 

 

 

 

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Brandon Williams [ <mailto:[e-mail]>
mailto:[e-mail]] 
Skickat: den 12 februari 2017 17:13
Till: Karl Stahl; 'Simon Perreault'; 'Spencer Dawkins at IETF';
<mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]
Kopia: 'Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)'
Ämne: Re: [tram] Chime in on attched redlined version-12 WAS: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-12.txt

 

(resending to the list from the correct address; apologies to those who 

receive multiple copies)

 

--

 

Karl,

 

My sense of the discussion is that there is in fact consensus on the 

anycast mechanism as described in the draft, and there has been for 

quite some time. That is why the draft was submitted for publishing in 

the first place. One vocal dissent does not mean that the WG failed to 

follow IETF process for reaching consensus.

 

Since we already have rough consensus on the mechanism and we clearly do 

not have even rough consensus that the mechanism requires changes, I 

support the chairs' decision to move forward.

 

--Brandon

 

On 02/06/2017 05:10 AM, Karl Stahl wrote:

> Simon,

> 

> 

> 

> There is no consensus yet whatsoever regarding any anycast mechanism,

> but we have a chance getting consensus of a working anycast mechanism,

> that works for all cases, which no one has disputed as working and that

> is technically superior.

> 

> 

> 

> Further, it does not exist such "mechanism defined in RFC 5766" and what

> is in current version -12 text is still undefined and interpreted

> radically different by participating WG individuals.

> 

> 

> 

> Only Tiru, during the DISCUSS, after version -10

> ( <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02219.html>
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02219.html

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Dar
chive_web_tram_current_msg02219.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ
-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8g
kiIfZ2CAYQ&s=9Vinivwpl57Ies6e-yU0dUlpAl4fU82P3tUUttRw6To&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darc
hive_web_tram_current_msg02219.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-
nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gk
iIfZ2CAYQ&s=9Vinivwpl57Ies6e-yU0dUlpAl4fU82P3tUUttRw6To&e=>)

> 

> 

> referenced  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5766#section-2.9>
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5766#section-2.9

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rf
c5766-23section-2D2.9&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuad
q6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=7l
8YhEhODU-mAOOge_PGkmBRe3izR5ccHjCt00fIMKg&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc
5766-23section-2D2.9&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq
6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=7l8
YhEhODU-mAOOge_PGkmBRe3izR5ccHjCt00fIMKg&e=>,

> which says:

> 

> "This version of TURN has been designed to **permit the future

> specification of a method** of doing anycast discovery of a TURN server

> over UDP.

> 

> 

> 

> Previous to my redlined "say Binding instead of Allocate to

> discover"-method, I questioned version -08 of the draft (before the

> DISCUSS) (in August,

>  <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02081.html>
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02081.html

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Dar
chive_web_tram_current_msg02081.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ
-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8g
kiIfZ2CAYQ&s=Ky60LXSnuUbd3V9g_U7OQeygIMsDBSIhzoR3CJnhudc&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darc
hive_web_tram_current_msg02081.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-
nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gk
iIfZ2CAYQ&s=Ky60LXSnuUbd3V9g_U7OQeygIMsDBSIhzoR3CJnhudc&e=>)

> but that was not responded to by the authors (only Branded responded,

> but from an authentication point of view, as if the method meant a

> mixture of discovery and usage, which was confusing).

> 

> 

> 

> During the DISCUSS, in response to my request to fix, Prashanth only

> said:  We intend to add the following to explain server behavior a

> little better:

> 

> “A TURN anycast server performs checks 1 to 7 discussed in Section 6.2

> of RFC5766. If all checks pass, the TURN anycast server MUST respond

> with a 300 (Try Alternate) error as described in [RFC5766]”

> 

> [Karl] That must be an update of RFC5766. Or does “TURN anycast server”

> imply that there ALSO is a “TURN unicast server” at the same interface

> accepting the Allocate request?

> 

> 

> 

> That was never responded to and in your discussion with me:

> 

>  <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02239.html>
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02239.html

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Dar
chive_web_tram_current_msg02239.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ
-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8g
kiIfZ2CAYQ&s=lF-ED0y_3a0PpIV86fSvOqTSZ35xA0rHRPSWIT_zg40&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darc
hive_web_tram_current_msg02239.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-
nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gk
iIfZ2CAYQ&s=lF-ED0y_3a0PpIV86fSvOqTSZ35xA0rHRPSWIT_zg40&e=>

> 

> 

> [Karl]> (I think Brandon assumes a TURN server listening to TWO IP

> addresses that

> 

>> can respond error 300 or make an allocation, distinguished by whether the

> 

>> request was received on its anycast address or its unicast address,

> 

> 

> 

> [Simon] Correct.

> 

> 

> 

> [Karl]> and I

> 

>> think Prashanth using the term "TURN anycast server" means we really have

> 

>> TWO TURN servers to play with,

> 

> 

> 

> [Simon] That would be an equally valid deployment scenario.

> 

> 

> 

> [Karl]> and I think others interpret the draft -10

> 

>> text as if the FIRST Allocate is responded to with error 300 and
SUBSEQUENT

> 

>> Allocates actually are making allocations.

> 

> 

> 

> [Simon] No, that would be wrong.

> 

> 

> 

> NOW, reverse engineering the current -12 text to understand what may be

> in the author’s mind (which they strangely enough never have spelled

> out), it is NOT the “TWO LAN IP TURN servers” but *the “**No, that would

> be wrong.**”-method that is intended*, see these highlights in the -12
text!

> 

> IP anycast can also be used for TURN service discovery. A packet sent to

> an anycast address is delivered to the "topologically nearest" network

> interface [Karl: Nearest cannot be two] with the anycast address. Using

> the TURN anycast address, the only two things that need to be deployed

> in the network for discovery are the two things that actually use TURN.

> 

> When a client requires TURN services, it sends a TURN allocate request

> to the assigned anycast address. A TURN anycast serverperforms checks 1

> to 7 discussed in Section 6.2 of [RFC5766]

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_id_draf
t-2Dietf-2Dtram-2Dturn-2Dserver-2Ddiscovery-2D12.html-23RFC5766&d=DwMFAw&c=9
6ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6j
k02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=NjtWzkAK2zeIDoPlbPXBtnWym-ieDQliiEuK
wilZ8-w&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_id_draft
-2Dietf-2Dtram-2Dturn-2Dserver-2Ddiscovery-2D12.html-23RFC5766&d=DwMFAw&c=96
ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk
02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=NjtWzkAK2zeIDoPlbPXBtnWym-ieDQliiEuKw
ilZ8-w&e=>.

> If all checks pass, the TURN anycast server MUST respond with a 300 (Try

> Alternate) error as described in Section 2.9 of [RFC5766]

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_id_draf
t-2Dietf-2Dtram-2Dturn-2Dserver-2Ddiscovery-2D12.html-23RFC5766&d=DwMFAw&c=9
6ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6j
k02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=NjtWzkAK2zeIDoPlbPXBtnWym-ieDQliiEuK
wilZ8-w&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_id_draft
-2Dietf-2Dtram-2Dturn-2Dserver-2Ddiscovery-2D12.html-23RFC5766&d=DwMFAw&c=96
ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk
02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=NjtWzkAK2zeIDoPlbPXBtnWym-ieDQliiEuKw
ilZ8-w&e=>;

> The response contains the TURN unicast address in the ALTERNATE-SERVER

> attribute. For *subsequent*communication with *the*TURN server, the

> client uses theresponding server's unicast address. This has to be done

> because two packets addressed to an anycast address may reach two

> different anycast servers. The client, thus, also needs to ensure that

> the initial request fits in a single packet. An implementation may

> choose to send out every new TURN Allocation request to the anycast

> address to discover the closest and the most optimal unicast address for

> the TURN server.

> 

> I think other participants in the discussion, also interpret the -12

> text as the “that would be wrong”-variant, or even worse, a mixture of

> discovery and usage authentication (where (D)TLS might come

> in( <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02297.html>
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02297.html

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Dar
chive_web_tram_current_msg02297.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ
-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8g
kiIfZ2CAYQ&s=ckHAyWA3lSkWuR_x23jKoarxwQ5p83eHWlRLRR0-WGU&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darc
hive_web_tram_current_msg02297.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-
nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gk
iIfZ2CAYQ&s=ckHAyWA3lSkWuR_x23jKoarxwQ5p83eHWlRLRR0-WGU&e=>

> )).

> 

> 

> 

> So, current version -12 meaning of text is probably not only “wrong”,

> but does not work (in addition to being undefined). Version -12 can have

> no consensus, nor can that be brought into an RFC.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> In order to NOW ease to get consensus for a defined and working anycast

> mechanism (my redlining of the -12 text), that works for all cases

> (which no one has disputed), I have just made an IPR declaration “in

> Alan Johnston / Avaya style (compare

>  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2555>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2555

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_i
pr_2555&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJ
a4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=-3GAqbhshjLGlqn1
rJTvvZYBX8hUMnoE9klSH8jcetE&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_ip
r_2555&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa
4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=-3GAqbhshjLGlqn1r
JTvvZYBX8hUMnoE9klSH8jcetE&e=>)”

> where any party can use the proposed anycast method (for which patent

> was provisionally applied for October 21, 2013) free of royalty as long

> as not asserting a patent right of its owns against us.My IPR

> Declaration related to this I-D should appear in day (said when
submitting).

> 

> 

> 

> /Karl

> 

> 

> 

> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----

> Från: Simon Perreault [ <mailto:[e-mail]>
mailto:[e-mail]]

> Skickat: den 3 februari 2017 14:43

> Till: Karl Stahl; 'Spencer Dawkins at IETF'

> Kopia:  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]; 'Tirumaleswar Reddy
(tireddy)'

> Ämne: Re: [tram] Chime in on attched redlined version-12 WAS: I-D

> Action: draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-12.txt

> 

> 

> 

> Karl,

> 

> 

> 

> There is no consensus in the working group behind this new anycast

> 

> mechanism. Therefore it can not be added to the draft, and the mechanism

> 

> defined in RFC 5766 remains.

> 

> 

> 

> Thanks,

> 

> Simon

> 

> 

> 

> Le 2017-02-02 à 18:23, Karl Stahl a écrit :

> 

>> The -12 version of the draft does not include major remedies of flaws

> 

>> that were un-addressed long before the DISCUSS, nor the latest regarding

> 

>> the possible use of (D)TLS for auto discovered turn servers provided the

> 

>> local or access network administrator, see

> 

>> 

> 

>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02216.html>
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02216.html

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Dar
chive_web_tram_current_msg02216.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ
-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8g
kiIfZ2CAYQ&s=bBFj_GASKSsY_HNdIBjjv0y8sjPtr6zzgj4BQ3oMrdU&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darc
hive_web_tram_current_msg02216.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-
nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gk
iIfZ2CAYQ&s=bBFj_GASKSsY_HNdIBjjv0y8sjPtr6zzgj4BQ3oMrdU&e=>

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> For the latest discussed, see

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02279.html>
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02279.html

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Dar
chive_web_tram_current_msg02279.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ
-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8g
kiIfZ2CAYQ&s=J8IfAGYsotvUD3BZ34GaL2PMdA8VgM4YrjsBZYsWTJU&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darc
hive_web_tram_current_msg02279.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-
nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gk
iIfZ2CAYQ&s=J8IfAGYsotvUD3BZ34GaL2PMdA8VgM4YrjsBZYsWTJU&e=>

> 

>> 

> 

>>>> However, I think we need agreement on the justification for such a

> 

>> 

> 

>>> change.

> 

>> 

> 

>>> [Karl] Justification is in the (A), (B), (C) and (D) of

> 

>> 

> 

>>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02254.html>
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02254.html

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Dar
chive_web_tram_current_msg02254.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ
-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8g
kiIfZ2CAYQ&s=88hP4v4Z4-R6Uabxb4H3ZiBhM0Qd5RJVPrV20Xqhdrk&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darc
hive_web_tram_current_msg02254.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-
nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gk
iIfZ2CAYQ&s=88hP4v4Z4-R6Uabxb4H3ZiBhM0Qd5RJVPrV20Xqhdrk&e=>

> 

>> 

> 

>>> where saying Binding instead Allocate, is necessary to achieve (A) and

> 

>> (B), and improves (C) and (D).

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> Brandon> It is true that you have provided a justification for the
change.

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02296.html>
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02296.html

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Dar
chive_web_tram_current_msg02296.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ
-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8g
kiIfZ2CAYQ&s=3RTX5rmvnTz6_hFMiKyI82eEcI3D2Wq3NRGBGG-g7HQ&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darc
hive_web_tram_current_msg02296.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-
nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gk
iIfZ2CAYQ&s=3RTX5rmvnTz6_hFMiKyI82eEcI3D2Wq3NRGBGG-g7HQ&e=>

> 

>> 

> 

>> The (D)TLS mandating was Author's idea to throw into version -10 during

> 

>> the discuss and remains in this version -11, breaking the consensus text

> 

>> since version -7.

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02297.html>
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02297.html

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Dar
chive_web_tram_current_msg02297.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ
-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8g
kiIfZ2CAYQ&s=ckHAyWA3lSkWuR_x23jKoarxwQ5p83eHWlRLRR0-WGU&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darc
hive_web_tram_current_msg02297.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-
nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gk
iIfZ2CAYQ&s=ckHAyWA3lSkWuR_x23jKoarxwQ5p83eHWlRLRR0-WGU&e=>

> 

>> 

> 

>> STUN dummy authentication instead of (D)TLS as suggested by Oleg

> Moskalenko

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> I have inserted my (now edited and adopted to the latest) redlining,

> 

>> removal of blue options etc. into the -12 draft text as attached, for

> 

>> the author to copy from and paste.

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> Without my red lining, current version -12 is in conflict with RFC7478

> 

>> (Web Real-Time Communication Use Cases and Requirements)  and does not

> 

>> meet the need of [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-return] (Recursively Encapsulated

> 

>> TURN) (see under redlined 7.2)

> 

>> 

> 

>> and it does not do what was set out in the Charter and “Milestone 3:

> 

>> TURN server auto-discovery mechanism for enterprise and ISPs”

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> Further, the authors have in version -12 (compared to from before

> 

>> DISCUSS)  changed the text “  6.  Discovery using Anycast “ to:

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

>
<https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-0
9.txt&url2=draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-12.txt>
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-09
.txt&url2=draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-12.txt

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_rfcdiff
-3Furl1-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dtram-2Dturn-2Dserver-2Ddiscovery-2D09.txt-26url2-3D
draft-2Dietf-2Dtram-2Dturn-2Dserver-2Ddiscovery-2D12.txt&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZca
MF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblM
wTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=p9f6UjD__Fo0xiUk6DaYgSTI26yAZyz0VNDbpfZLpgA
&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_rfcdiff-
3Furl1-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dtram-2Dturn-2Dserver-2Ddiscovery-2D09.txt-26url2-3Dd
raft-2Dietf-2Dtram-2Dturn-2Dserver-2Ddiscovery-2D12.txt&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaM
F4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMw
TNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=p9f6UjD__Fo0xiUk6DaYgSTI26yAZyz0VNDbpfZLpgA&
e=>

> 

>> 

> 

>> “IP anycast can also be used for TURN service discovery.  A packet

> 

>> 

> 

>>    sent to an anycast address is delivered to the "topologically

> 

>> 

> 

>>    nearest" network interface with the anycast address.  Using the TURN

> 

>> 

> 

>>    anycast address, the only two things that need to be deployed in the

> 

>> 

> 

>>    network for discovery are the two things that actually use TURN.

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>>    When a client requires TURN services, it sends a TURN allocate

> 

>> 

> 

>>    request to the assigned anycast address.  A TURN anycast server

> 

>> 

> 

>>    performs checks 1 to 7 discussed in Section 6.2 of [RFC5766].  If all

> 

>> 

> 

>>    checks pass, the TURN anycast server MUST respond with a 300 (Try

> 

>> 

> 

>>    Alternate) error as described in Section 2.9 of [RFC5766]; The

> 

>> 

> 

>>    response contains the TURN unicast address in the ALTERNATE-SERVER

> 

>> 

> 

>>    attribute.  For subsequent communication with the TURN server, the

> 

>> 

> 

>>    client uses the responding server's unicast address.  This has to be

> 

>> 

> 

>>    done because two packets addressed to an anycast address may reach

> 

>> 

> 

>>    two different anycast servers.  The client, thus, also needs to

> 

>> 

> 

>>    ensure that the initial request fits in a single packet.  An

> 

>> 

> 

>>    implementation may choose to send out every new TURN Allocation

> 

>> 

> 

>>    request to the anycast address to discover the closest and the most

> 

>> 

> 

>>    optimal unicast address for the TURN server.”

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> The highlighted “A TURN anycast server”  isnothing known nor described

> 

>> (in fact there would have to be TWO TURN servers, one deployed at the

> 

>> anycast address and another TURN server deployed at the unicast address,

> 

>> reacting differently to the Allocation request) for this to work as

> 

>> clarified in WG discussions with Simon).

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> The last sentence “An  implementation may choose to send out every new

> 

>> TURN Allocation request to the anycast address to discover the closest

> 

>> and the most optimal unicast address for the TURN server.” violates

> 

>> security and deployment considerations (see red lined considerations in

> 

>> attached).

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> Further, the authors have in version -12 (compared to from before

> 

>> DISCUSS)  changed the text “7.2.  Recursively Encapsulated TURN “ to:

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

>
<https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-0
9.txt&url2=draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-12.txt>
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-09
.txt&url2=draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-12.txt

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_rfcdiff
-3Furl1-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dtram-2Dturn-2Dserver-2Ddiscovery-2D09.txt-26url2-3D
draft-2Dietf-2Dtram-2Dturn-2Dserver-2Ddiscovery-2D12.txt&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZca
MF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblM
wTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=p9f6UjD__Fo0xiUk6DaYgSTI26yAZyz0VNDbpfZLpgA
&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_rfcdiff-
3Furl1-3Ddraft-2Dietf-2Dtram-2Dturn-2Dserver-2Ddiscovery-2D09.txt-26url2-3Dd
raft-2Dietf-2Dtram-2Dturn-2Dserver-2Ddiscovery-2D12.txt&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaM
F4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMw
TNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=p9f6UjD__Fo0xiUk6DaYgSTI26yAZyz0VNDbpfZLpgA&
e=>

> 

>> 

> 

>> “WebRTC endpoints SHOULD treat any TURN server discovered through the

> 

>> 

> 

>>    mechanisms described in this specification as an enterprise/gateway

> 

>> 

> 

>>    or access network server, in accordance with Recursively Encapsulated

> 

>> 

> 

>>    TURN [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-return].”

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> The text is a contradiction, since the return draft deals with TURN

> 

>> servers provided by the local or access network, not other TURN servers

> 

>> discovered by this draft.

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> *Current -12 draft cannot be considered to be an RFC!*

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> I suggest the redline version of draft -12 attached is chimed into now

> 

>> and quickly merged into a version -13, so we can avoid the "Conflict

> 

>> Resolution and Appeals"process hinted about in

> 

>> 

> 

>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02202.html>
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tram/current/msg02202.html

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Dar
chive_web_tram_current_msg02202.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ
-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8g
kiIfZ2CAYQ&s=xJqnJA5Recy-zn0mjGAwmioTMfhnHGcUQiW8HvTcUAY&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darc
hive_web_tram_current_msg02202.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-
nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gk
iIfZ2CAYQ&s=xJqnJA5Recy-zn0mjGAwmioTMfhnHGcUQiW8HvTcUAY&e=>,

> 

>> further delaying what is needed for Internet real-time communication and

> 

>> especially for WebRTC.

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> /Karl

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> *Från:*tram [ <mailto:[e-mail]>
mailto:[e-mail]] *För *Spencer Dawkins at IETF

> 

>> *Skickat:* den 1 februari 2017 22:12

> 

>> *Till:* Simon Perreault

> 

>> *Kopia:*  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail] < <mailto:[e-mail]>
mailto:[e-mail]> < <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]>;

> Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)

> 

>> *Ämne:* Re: [tram] I-D Action:

> draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-12.txt

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> Hi, Simon,

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Simon Perreault <[e-mail]

> 

>> < <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

> 

>> 

> 

>> Le 2017-02-01 à 15:37, Spencer Dawkins at IETF a écrit :

> 

>>> Dear TRAMsters,

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)

> 

>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]

> < <mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]>
mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]>><mailto:tireddy@cisc
o.com

> 

>> < <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>     This revision addresses comments from Brandon.

> 

>>> 

> 

>>>     -Tiru

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> 

> 

>>> How close are we to asking Terry to clear the (last remaining) DISCUSS?

> 

>> 

> 

>> Thanks for the reminder.

> 

>> 

> 

>> If my co-chair and the authors have no objection, I think we're ready.

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> I'll give this 24 hours for people to chime in, but I do want to ping

> 

>> Terry.

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> It's a little-appreciated thing, but AD ballot positions go away when

> 

>> ADs go away; this document has 12 yes/no objections now, and you need 10

> 

>> for approval, and three are from ADs who are stepping down in March ;-)

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> Spencer

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> 

> 

>> _______________________________________________

> 

>> tram mailing list

> 

>>  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail] < <mailto:[e-mail]>
mailto:[e-mail]>

> 

>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_l
istinfo_tram&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgw
bBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=bfMg0C2AcGn
cycaAxmFKGxYyCDivv_QxmIJUrJgAIHA&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_li
stinfo_tram&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwb
BVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=bfMg0C2AcGnc
ycaAxmFKGxYyCDivv_QxmIJUrJgAIHA&e=>

> 

>> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> --

> 

> Simon Perreault

> 

> Director of Engineering, Platform | Jive Communications, Inc.

> 

>  <https://jive.com> https://jive.com

> <
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jive.com&d=DwMFAw&c=96
ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk
02cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=-0naNOVsq-b3TnBmNWKQhhf-TF_BR_JdB-AIE
p4Azag&e=>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jive.com&d=DwMFAw&c=96Z
bZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6-NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=LlHl6jk0
2cblMwTNHwaYXp02Cfy8lHe8gkiIfZ2CAYQ&s=-0naNOVsq-b3TnBmNWKQhhf-TF_BR_JdB-AIEp
4Azag&e=>

> | [phone] ext. 1241 |  <mailto:[e-mail]>
[e-mail]

> < <mailto:[e-mail]> mailto:[e-mail]>

> 

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> tram mailing list

>  <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram

> 

 

-- 

Brandon Williams; Chief Architect

Cloud Networking; Akamai Technologies Inc.

 

-- 

Brandon Williams; Chief Architect

Cloud Networking; Akamai Technologies Inc.