Re: [tram] Multiple allocations SV: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-15.txt

[Brandon Williams <[e-mail]>]

Karl,

There is no WG decision to hinder this, simply a disagreement about 
approach.

Some of us (the editors in particular) have been working on the turnbis 
draft for quite some time. It went into WGLC several months ago and it 
is already well behind the originally agreed schedule in the charter.

Considering the fact that this is not something that was ever called out 
previously, we are only questioning why it has suddenly become critical 
to expand the scope of turnbis and thus delay publishing even further.

If there were already a draft that explains the rationale, use cases, 
and protocol changes, it would be easier to assess the impact and 
consider inclusion. This was the path followed by a few other new 
capabilities that were eventually rolled directly into turnbis.

If the WG came to the conclusion that we should not delay turnbis any 
further but instead should advance the capability as a new RFC 
candidate, we would already be in a good position to that if we had a 
draft in hand. If the WG decided to include this in turnbis, we would 
already have text available.

IOW, I am only resisting the idea of expanding the scope of turnbis 
without WG consensus to do so; I am not resisting your proposal itself. 
The suggestion that you take the time to write down your idea in I-D 
format seems like a good way for you to drive the required WG discussion.

--Brandon

On 03/22/2018 05:17 PM, Karl Stahl wrote:
> No and this draft cannot be approved without the generalization I have 
> pointed out.
> 
> I really don’t understand why we are having this resistance.
> 
> Already the second paragraph of the Abstract states:
> 
> 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.
> 
> And further in the Introduction
> 
> TURN was designed as one piece in the larger ICE approach to NAT
> 
>     traversal.  Implementors of TURN are *_urged_* to investigate ICE and
> 
>     seriously consider using it for their application.
> 
> **
> 
> I cannot imagine that there is some WG decision to hinder ICE usage for 
> network provided TURN servers EXCEPT FOR EXACTLY BRANDON’S NETWORK.
> 
> For now I refrain from writing/debating more – which would override the 
> effort of what is required to generalize as asked.
> 
> Please be happy that most of the dual allocation work done, can be 
> reused to fulfill the generalization.
> 
> Tiru and Brandon are encouraged to read the TRAM charter …
> 
> /Karl
> 
> *Från:*Simon Perreault [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Skickat:* den 21 mars 2018 18:13
> *Till:* Brandon Williams
> *Kopia:* Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy; Olle E. Johansson; Karl Stahl; 
> [e-mail]
> *Ämne:* Re: [tram] Multiple allocations SV: I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-15.txt
> 
> 2018-03-21 17:05 GMT+00:00 Brandon Williams <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>:
> 
> Chairs, Any suggestions on approach?
> 
> The proposal on the table is for Karl+Olle to write their idea into a 
> new draft.
> 
> Karl+Olle, can you guys live with that?
> 
> Simon
> 
> **********************
> 
> Let me explain more clearly why multiple allocations is needed:
> 
> ICE is about finding all/many paths for the media, e.g. with the help of
> 
> TURN servers.
> 
> Those paths are not over ONE IPv4 network, over ONE IPv6 network or EXACTLY
> 
> ONE OF EACH.
> 
> If fact, it is more common that you have several IPv4 networks paths.
> 
> Now that we have network provided TURN servers, you only ask for Allocation
> 
> once (contrary to application provided TURN servers, where you can be
> 
> directed to Allocate several times.) and thus we need all relay addresses in
> 
> one allocation request.
> 
> Wasn't that the reason dual allocation was requested? The need for multiple
> 
> allocation is stronger!
> 
> Please address this, e.g. like below (seems you are almost there).
> 
> /Karl
> 
> ******************* Previous *******************
> 
> Allowing a turn allocation to return multiple relayed transport addresses,
> 
> beyond ONE IPv4 and ONE IPv6 (which may sit on the same or on different
> 
> interfaces/network segments), seems like very small step now when the dual
> 
> allocation was put in place in this draft. We certainly need it (some
> 
> reasons below) if TURN is going to be used where needed and we cannot wait
> 
> for any additional draft.
> 
> Seems like it is sufficient to extent this table (found in draft 14) with 3
> 
> new values (as shown):
> 
> 16.  STUN Attributes
> 
>     This STUN extension defines the following attributes:
> 
>       0x000C: CHANNEL-NUMBER
> 
>       0x000D: LIFETIME
> 
>       0x0010: Reserved (was BANDWIDTH)
> 
>       0x0012: XOR-PEER-ADDRESS
> 
>       0x0013: DATA
> 
>       0x0016: XOR-RELAYED-ADDRESS
> 
>       0x0017: REQUESTED-ADDRESS-FAMILY
> 
>       0x0018: EVEN-PORT
> 
>       0x0019: REQUESTED-TRANSPORT
> 
>       0x001A: DONT-FRAGMENT
> 
>       0x0021: Reserved (was TIMER-VAL)
> 
>       0x0022: RESERVATION-TOKEN
> 
>       TBD-CA: ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-FAMILY
> 
> ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-ALL
> 
> ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-ALLV4
> 
> ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-ALLV6
> 
>       TBD-CA: ADDRESS-ERROR-CODE
> 
>       TBD-CA: ICMP
> 
> Actually, browsing through the draft for ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-FAMILY, very
> 
> little text seems to be added for generalization to  ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-xxx.
> 
> Almost everything applies to ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-xxx and can be reused.
> 
> ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-ALL should be the default for any modern TURN client.
> 
> Check! - We need this now.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Karl
> 

-- 
Brandon Williams; Chief Architect
Cloud Networking; Akamai Technologies Inc.