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

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Sun, 09 February 2014 18:24 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 77BF31A03B2 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 10:24:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 bdSlTtPoa3BY for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 10:24:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:96]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A17461A0433 for <tram@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 10:24:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.51]) by qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id QHDJ1n00516LCl059JQghs; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 18:24:40 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id QJQf1n00L3ZTu2S3SJQflK; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 18:24:40 +0000
Message-ID: <52F7C7E7.7050005@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 13:24:39 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; 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>
In-Reply-To: <CALDtMrLdxC8Vdge-XQuU0kmF1YaiRQXGZm=6mExbA6LwsnNGow@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1391970280; bh=FsWt9A3wsnI3yyl7t+Zwc1j9HW8a4lXN3nItBBgmptM=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=Nig8mfCqjNWq6dpdXFn+3UT9ME5rDcMHOFC8zbqM8lV4lA9oWvwtX7WyS5ugJLnt8 cxC7G68GbLuLcgCVgZD82c/Zo5KCMHwQQGA4LXuFIb103pAYYrRpaiObECmBbvdIO2 jW7aa6axl5bQe1VoKTpMTO5mzh7iprgLjagy1IiTfEzty/WwpQxPEvEBY1hFiRO47H IPpMH9r5fQ7UQUW3aHBmofKWwEQGrOVfrAOvFnHphs9tpUV4LOsE4f2hjUc0xei5E5 LFMD43O8W9yci9hDIFI+5rJA8OKW/Oust33NudhlkYUrp31An0pOLoYM36d4jAaHp8 y5keXVIA6XhbA==
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: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 18:24:51 -0000

Shouldn't backward compatibility of TURN-bis servers with TURN clients 
be *mandatory*, rather than optional?

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 2/7/14 5:08 PM, Oleg Moskalenko wrote:
> OK, that's fine.
>
> Oleg
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Simon Perreault
> <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca <mailto:simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>> wrote:
>
>     Le 2014-02-07 16:19, Oleg Moskalenko a écrit :
>      > Well... OK. If we want the client always to send the address-family -
>      > but we do not enforce that on the receiving side... that sounds
>      > awkward,  like a speed limit without cops. It is great - but does
>     that
>      > strict requirement make sense without enforcement ? We can always say
>      > that TURN client SHOULD send the address-family, but MUST
>     probably would
>      > be too strict... I guess.
>
>     The idea is: first, we specify that TURN bis clients MUST send
>     REQUESTED-ADDRESS-FAMILY. Then we specify TURN bis server behaviour
>     depending on the value of REQUESTED-ADDRESS-FAMILY. We do *not* specify
>     TURN bis server behaviour when that parameter is absent. If the
>     parameter is absent, the client is not following the TURN bis spec, and
>     the server is free to behave however it wants. That includes *wink wink*
>     being backward-compatible with TURN.
>
>     This is exactly like the STUNv2 magic cookie: STUNv2 clients MUST send
>     the magic cookie, and STUNv2 server behaviour is defined when the cookie
>     is present. But STUNv2 does not specify server behaviour when the cookie
>     is absent. The cookie being absent means the client is not a STUNv2
>     client. The server is free to behave however it wishes. That includes
>     *wink wink* being backward-compatible with STUNv1.
>
>     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
>     _______________________________________________
>     tram mailing list
>     tram@ietf.org <mailto:tram@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> tram@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>