Re: [tram] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-19.txt

Brandon Williams <brandon.williams@akamai.com> Fri, 10 August 2018 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <brandon.williams@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B03130EAE for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.711 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, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 Htz6nYGmrri2 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C546F130F69 for <tram@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 12:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0122330.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w7AJVcIp001121; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 20:35:31 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=subject : to : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=jan2016.eng; bh=NEjXWdYH9ONwPX7z6f/arpKioxWFXqlCbbcb9OrVW/0=; b=YTOFE7+3dgorCXv+wXCtGNxD0TAQilK20W+e8QwGEXsUz/PTqbvClRRCZUJuxOsuUz3R HrleW4kTwa56Hf28pH9Hnm804z2ND9T9nphZbMlkfSS5lu4zQsTIxnyIjeGF829qrFDE wdmNtZMBGVBs9/aq2BP38JjENmlfeY0E4rZ/Zb0Gl8ZsVsikTT6/EBDviRmKtQr2OaaE Rtxt04yQpVg5Ou3kkOhKHcKU5o4phlIh9QFHqQkwhT7TmGumf1oogwPmhGdUEk020khD GA/9qy/buRpYTpTx+raBPRkKYtc5SWD7AZ3Bi9QcuFewcCPbCDf5SX9NJbgGb+hOHLu8 9A==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint2 (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [184.51.33.19]) by mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2kqww5fpc2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Aug 2018 20:35:31 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w7AJYspv024341; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:35:30 -0400
Received: from prod-mail-relay10.akamai.com ([172.27.118.251]) by prod-mail-ppoint2.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2kn7fupxmj-1; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:35:29 -0400
Received: from [172.28.19.112] (bowill.kendall.corp.akamai.com [172.28.19.112]) by prod-mail-relay10.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFD31FCD8; Fri, 10 Aug 2018 19:35:29 +0000 (GMT)
To: tram@ietf.org, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <rmohanr@cisco.com>
References: <152809326560.20924.1993421118096117008@ietfa.amsl.com> <BN6PR16MB14259FA70767BA31FB3E35EBEA670@BN6PR16MB1425.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
From: Brandon Williams <brandon.williams@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <dd93a90b-7526-056e-582d-58720f9f20c2@akamai.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:35:29 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR16MB14259FA70767BA31FB3E35EBEA670@BN6PR16MB1425.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-08-10_12:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=8 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1808100209
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-08-10_12:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=8 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1808100209
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/BwZpDeGp06QeQxhOfkuJLpo3CQI>
Subject: Re: [tram] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-19.txt
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 19:35:40 -0000

Hi all,

The one remaining item that I have been hoping for before submitted
turnbis for publication is review of permissionless ICE relay support
from someone who intends to make use of this new feature in the
protocol. I attempted to get commitments for review from EKR and Cullen
in Montreal, but they were each busy enough with other things that they
weren't prepared to make such a commitment. So, with that in mind, I
have a couple of questions for the list.

For those of you who have reviewed this new content (namely Nils,
Justin, and Ram): Have any of you implemented support for this
capability? Or do you intend to in the near future?

For the rest of you, is there anyone who has not reviewed the changes
yet who has implemented these changes?

I'm mostly concerned about verifying that an implementor has looked at
this carefully enough to be confident that it can be implemented
effectively, especially as regards relevant security controls to protect
the client that is behind a relay that supports this capability.

I'll appreciate any feedback from the list about this.

Thanks,
--Brandon

On 06/04/2018 02:24 AM, Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy wrote:
> This revision addresses comments from Justin.
> 
> -Tiru
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tram [mailto:tram-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-
>> drafts@ietf.org
>> Sent: Monday, June 4, 2018 11:51 AM
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>> Cc: tram@ietf.org
>> Subject: [tram] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-19.txt
>>
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the TURN Revised and Modernized WG of the IETF.
>>
>>         Title           : Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions
>> to Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)
>>         Authors         : Tirumaleswar Reddy
>>                           Alan Johnston
>>                           Philip Matthews
>>                           Jonathan Rosenberg
>> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-19.txt
>> 	Pages           : 84
>> 	Date            : 2018-06-03
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    If a host is located behind a NAT, then in certain situations it can
>>    be impossible for that host to communicate directly with other hosts
>>    (peers).  In these situations, it is necessary for the host to use
>>    the services of an intermediate node that acts as a communication
>>    relay.  This specification defines a protocol, called TURN (Traversal
>>    Using Relays around NAT), that allows the host to control the
>>    operation of the relay and to exchange packets with its peers using
>>    the relay.  TURN differs from some other relay control protocols in
>>    that it allows a client to communicate with multiple peers using a
>>    single relay address.
>>
>>    The TURN protocol was designed to be used as part of the ICE
>>    (Interactive Connectivity Establishment) approach to NAT traversal,
>>    though it also can be used without ICE.
>>
>>    This document obsoletes RFC 5766 and RFC 6156.
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-turnbis/
>>
>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-19
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-19
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-19
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tram mailing list
>> tram@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
> 

-- 
Brandon Williams
Platform Engineering
Akamai Technologies Inc.