IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tram] WGLC draft-ietf-tram-alpn-00

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 18 September 2014 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
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 3BA091A87E9 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 s7uOg41dB9P1 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x236.google.com (mail-la0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2643F1A87DF for <tram@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ge10so1196295lab.27 for <tram@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=MYfcvULFmIKn3b+QOZXAByUBYCsZj+T8d1UWVfMH23o=; b=LWSchAocehlWrOAgd2IYoG4PIl3ak0JLktr5iNLO2MpGWbt9lWH3OcsGCVZFzI6e5y cUATeiXmfVjFgtnQHBzC9/Bi/oNwdTv9LWVVbU7Bip3PqAn5WwpGERswElZvdL49QlBf jby0hmANMaiSKeEEI/+IaJvn1wWtGhJh5u5Ozn9PxC68Dg1xIY5VVtE2FIan9inN5UNI OyfObMhVeGWoyWRyJvVX4xUXmiqc562EmpRjxVK6LgbjxKC1rkNLvyrtn4pXTUY5NNTI NzkH/ZIwq112NjRCaZEZSiQHerrcgRQiqLhBVUzRiCfpJx9pnZYWock9ivupRPKnypYe 91KA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.219.71 with SMTP id pm7mr4448031lbc.3.1411048292445; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.166.75 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.166.75 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANO7kWDH0X3+ai0VxT0FaQUWA9jACrpAJPqLV+8wANcRuk9tLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANO7kWCiU275DnNsJ7pn8ALjpV5qVViCQUQS8VOgubArGYG_5g@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXWLhAggZwP3ZhDsDMnx6ueYOjrMw12=tD9xEryx_5Z0A@mail.gmail.com> <C7219C6D-A887-4E05-8869-996F8B32D810@cisco.com> <CABkgnnV_u32ZLpoKxX7Z7ExbJAEOXgR9BgiZnRg7vEWFhaZ4rw@mail.gmail.com> <AEE73BD1-650C-41C5-A904-CD8E0E754EB3@cisco.com> <CABkgnnV5_anUGTcBFqfZOPSJ_GgT3XLsq2R1_1_dvUVb9yt8jQ@mail.gmail.com> <D03E1542.4DDBC%praspati@cisco.com> <CABkgnnXFtovkGegh5nieS5CWxUg6q8MQNm=V4od=J=BukkbPvA@mail.gmail.com> <CANO7kWDH0X3+ai0VxT0FaQUWA9jACrpAJPqLV+8wANcRuk9tLw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:51:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXcGRCb9r_f17YEEfVxuiWbySBe+CQnv-Dj9YgH_WdNEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3ce4c3b75bc05035748be"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/GFw9zyAKvLM32MLoRrVWgDgJwlI
Cc: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com>, Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tram] WGLC draft-ietf-tram-alpn-00
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: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 13:51:36 -0000

On Sep 17, 2014 5:43 AM, "Simon Perreault" <sperreault@jive.com> wrote:
>> I'm still not convinced by the use case for identifying "stun".
>
> How else would normal Binding requests be identified? I mean, I don't
have a use case, but as an implementer I need to know what ALPN label to
use.

I can't imagine wrapping a Binding request in a (D)TLS handshake in any
scenario. It is usually the other easy around.

And, in those cases where you are sending Binding requests, your goal isn't
to do STUN. That isn't the application protocol, it's something like RTP,
or that thing your game talks, or some new STUN usage that really does
something.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email