Re: [tram] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-27: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com> Wed, 17 July 2019 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <tirumaleswarreddy_konda@mcafee.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 5A91D120098 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=mcafee.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 5MQynUaWNmnU for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-210.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-210.mimecast.com [63.128.21.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EBC6120224 for <tram@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-NAI-Header: Modified by McAfee Email Gateway (5500)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mcafee.com; s=s_mcafee; t=1563366292; h=ARC-Seal: ARC-Message-Signature:ARC-Authentication-Results: From:To:CC:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index: Date:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language: Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product:dlp-version:dlp-reaction:authentication-results: x-originating-ip:x-ms-publictraffictype:x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: x-microsoft-antispam:x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: x-ms-exchange-purlcount:x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers:x-forefront-prvs: x-forefront-antispam-report:received-spf:x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: x-microsoft-antispam-message-info:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id:X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: X-OriginatorOrg:X-NAI-Spam-Flag:X-NAI-Spam-Level: X-NAI-Spam-Threshold:X-NAI-Spam-Score:X-NAI-Spam-Version; bh=p239S4JrDXbkJgq8j0Kdeaj9x9qFDcPOuxGzLd Stjjc=; b=J9AmMW5LAvI0gCzb89mMduxy93d/XsZ0hIQFQJSt hXV5uioR2lWNPn02ilQzcRlk14aGsY62UxeSkA8Uj87Qz1yl6c +Qsfxz0xVqz+dgwCLO3LZeyuwIHGnDuDZZ716Wi+y7xJpLGp+4 MkAIuPqFaYpOISYxE+PIy3PieTpON9Q=
Received: from DNVWSMAILOUT1.mcafee.com (dnvwsmailout1.mcafee.com [161.69.31.173]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-134-BsHKzs1oOJ-Jvdya6YRJiw-1; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 08:35:47 -0400
Received: from DNVEXAPP1N06.corpzone.internalzone.com (DNVEXAPP1N06.corpzone.internalzone.com [10.44.48.90]) by DNVWSMAILOUT1.mcafee.com with smtp (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384) id 6bf8_43ff_acfb61d9_aa1a_4cce_862f_856e5e73c518; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:24:51 -0600
Received: from DNVEXAPP1N05.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.48.89) by DNVEXAPP1N06.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.48.90) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:35:44 -0600
Received: from DNVO365EDGE2.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.176.74) by DNVEXAPP1N05.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.48.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:35:43 -0600
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.44.176.240) by edge.mcafee.com (10.44.176.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:35:42 -0600
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=ToidbuN1ws2Jz4wnjoXlE/a34C6LL1vJd9dqSCmrzwnrW4rgfKIrk17Rhi+fC+UV0M7Shdge/uTzdgVI/0U6X8eC5GZyDSfI7uFlfQdUKZJ5eZ1Kb1UzRXQRSIwWB1ZbF/HXkyXXC8uHCR1tHMq3GKHa5AzGVAVLYpC0jooSn+IfdX+yONJYbxg075RnpJqWp9ZUG8ImmLuEyzVMZNiMG7R8vC7LUhNkeBrhk8iESVKqsnYi/SvoQHBz8DlqS52ez4NReBKy4v0pkxwluNUefNitxehxIvOK3Fvx65PPdA2TTCc2fsNN71Y0jkCRJYDvRjj8CX5wibAycgExqfTQkQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=p239S4JrDXbkJgq8j0Kdeaj9x9qFDcPOuxGzLdStjjc=; b=EJj254BugxvDGmYKx3Lgu6uzRXSzHPIneiDCubfclOsQB1uQjm/3BtKh/5XOlHZH0OI+QORax3iqw6QfAUWcRatknbvycWnS+0hDaY9z6+2wQdtSqhYsCOOOkKxa4IIvtskH1q8Z+OBA33dJwNKIpny/9v1C+sGmfXF7h00c6Zf57jQudUqgB1n5/0twylHzjpCAWUbpu94FVYCG8xOy/0z6IV8i8eR+9Cuw2efBI4iWJurhNyCakYLIN3JWFyis5LRs67VAJMaMagAj/igpj7AjVVPjZk6RMiRvwF6Je7kbyUWGAEYHNSf85Jryw9QiW8O4nWY2KxeSSdmPrGtB3g==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1;spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mcafee.com;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=mcafee.com;dkim=pass header.d=mcafee.com;arc=none
Received: from DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com (10.172.44.147) by DM5PR16MB1578.namprd16.prod.outlook.com (10.173.211.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2073.14; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:35:42 +0000
Received: from DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::570:2208:75c2:5f17]) by DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::570:2208:75c2:5f17%8]) with mapi id 15.20.2073.012; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:35:42 +0000
From: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?TWlyamEgS8O8aGxld2luZA==?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "tram-chairs@ietf.org" <tram-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tram-turnbis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tram-turnbis@ietf.org>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>, "brandon.williams@akamai.com" <brandon.williams@akamai.com>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?W3RyYW1dIE1pcmphIEvDvGhsZXdpbmQncyBEaXNjdXNzIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWll?= =?utf-8?Q?tf-tram-turnbis-27:_(with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT)?=
Thread-Index: AQHVNzftWkN2G8olS0aOBDqJ1prLPKbG+S0ggAecAUA=
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:35:42 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR16MB170554281EFA84C4CC8A950FEAC90@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
References: <156277411459.15353.13243689830942672102.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <DM5PR16MB17057CF81A9137D3887BA65BEACF0@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR16MB17057CF81A9137D3887BA65BEACF0@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.3.0.16
dlp-reaction: no-action
x-originating-ip: [49.37.206.28]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1efa0781-c015-443b-9b7c-08d70ab34879
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR16MB1578;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR16MB1578:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 6
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR16MB1578194CB0B031E52EFD5CB5EAC90@DM5PR16MB1578.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 01018CB5B3
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(346002)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(76094002)(32952001)(199004)(189003)(51914003)(13464003)(71190400001)(80792005)(186003)(305945005)(52536014)(71200400001)(229853002)(4326008)(3846002)(33656002)(7736002)(6116002)(25786009)(11346002)(476003)(478600001)(30864003)(966005)(74316002)(446003)(5660300002)(66574012)(256004)(5024004)(14444005)(224303003)(2906002)(81156014)(8936002)(81166006)(14454004)(9686003)(6306002)(7696005)(68736007)(66066001)(55016002)(6436002)(110136005)(54906003)(86362001)(26005)(6506007)(53546011)(102836004)(6246003)(99286004)(486006)(66556008)(76116006)(316002)(53936002)(64756008)(66476007)(66946007)(76176011)(66446008)(85282002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR16MB1578; H:DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: lRAZ6dxDPq2Vg9KNCMgCkJfQXkF/NMZ0zAXcOlz8w1OwCVbz9Y+/I086FYIiJvI9oqMoiV6YieIntnAbwjZt0adCF1lQ8LLEv2fEtuCnPu/cTVt8HL9rPouYXpfKtAqJiiSUcK5WC1RnQ4xNPrwZdoBzye1QR8+aJJJFUr5W9X+M98Avv1ASAipuXcdJ1VfS1RE7pOTkXcA5yk82A0Jcb/2afYs14iRApIrc1b7C6+TdM41HflMkhsK9aMVnPGweMSuTVkKtCO+dVEG39uQUAxX52UEeUBFMro3hdrLUr839auJsmWU6pSQBiVJqBarOsHYDouVCO75XqyTQJfLUUfbvXBIHDmXE+5EzRmou71I8Uqzn/XjjnJ/gjV50FAJlMtzprLg0+t/xpXJp4XD4wTjperB2peilrruubHjoH4g=
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 1efa0781-c015-443b-9b7c-08d70ab34879
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Jul 2019 12:35:42.6876 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4943e38c-6dd4-428c-886d-24932bc2d5de
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR16MB1578
X-OriginatorOrg: mcafee.com
X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO
X-NAI-Spam-Level:
X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 15
X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0.2
X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6591> : inlines <7120> : streams <1827614> : uri <2868588>
X-MC-Unique: BsHKzs1oOJ-Jvdya6YRJiw-1
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/GcrNifJwicdHDl_IXH0YuAWWQMA>
Subject: Re: [tram] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?tram-turnbis-27=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 13:06:13 -0000

Hi Mirja,

I have updated the draft to address your Discuss and comments (see https://github.com/tireddy2/TURNbis/blob/master/Diff%20%20draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-27.txt%20-%20draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-28.pdf). 
Please have a look.

Cheers,
-Tiru

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 12:01 PM
> To: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>;; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;
> Cc: tram-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-tram-turnbis@ietf.org; tram@ietf.org;
> brandon.williams@akamai.com
> Subject: RE: [tram] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-27:
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Mirja,
> 
> Thanks for the review. Please see inline
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tram <tram-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Mirja Kühlewind via
> > Datatracker
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 9:25 PM
> > To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>;
> > Cc: tram-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-tram-turnbis@ietf.org;
> > tram@ietf.org; brandon.williams@akamai.com
> > Subject: [tram] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on
> > draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-27: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
> > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> > content is safe.
> >
> > Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-27: Discuss
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> > this introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tram-turnbis/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > One quick discussion which probably is only an oversight and therefore
> > should be easy got fix:
> >
> > I'm bit confused about the requirement on using authentication. This
> > draft says in section 5 (as RFC5766 does):
> >
> > "The server MUST demand that all requests
> >    from the client be authenticated using this mechanism, or that a
> >    equally strong or stronger mechanism for client authentication is
> >    used."
> >
> > However, RFC 8155 which is even now cited in this draft, updates
> > RFC5766 and relaxes this requirement. Later in the section 7.2. this draft
> says:
> >
> > "The server SHOULD require that the request be authenticated."
> >
> > I assume the requirement in section 5 is an oversight?
> 
> Yes, removed the requirement in Section 5.
> 
> >
> > I also recommend to only specify this requirement normatively in one place.
> 
> Done, updated step 1 in Section 5 to address the comment from Ben as
> follows:
> 
>    1.   The TURN server provided by the local or access network MAY
>         allow unauthenticated request in order to accept Allocation
>         requests from new and/or guest users in the network who do not
>         necessarily possess long term credentials for STUN
>         authentication and its security implications are discussed in
>         [RFC8155].  Otherwise, the server MUST require that the request
>         be authenticated.  If the request is authenticated, the
>         authentication MUST be done either using the long-term
>         credential mechanism of [I-D.ietf-tram-stunbis] or the STUN
>         Extension for Third-Party Authorization [RFC7635] unless the
>         client and server agree to use another mechanism through some
>         procedure outside the scope of this document.
> 
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Some other technical comments/questions:
> >
> > 1) Sec 3.7:
> > "or use UDP fragmentation [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]."
> > I believe the possibility to use UDP fragmentation was brought up by
> > the TSV-ART review (Thanks Joe!). However, I would like to mention
> > that this can only be used if supported by both endpoints and that
> > should probably also be remarked here. The next sentence in the draft
> > indicated this by saying "until UDP fragmentation support is
> > available", however, this actually seem to be editorially a bit
> > misplaced there and could explain more. See also this text in
> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options:
> >
> > "FRAG needs to be used with extreme care because it will present
> >    incorrect datagram boundaries to a legacy receiver, unless encoded
> >    as LITE data (see Section 5.8)."
> >
> > Also note that draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options is still under development
> > and we don't have much deployment experience with it yet.
> 
> Yes, Joe suggest the above change. I have added the following line:
> Note that the UDP fragmentation option needs to be supported by both
> endpoints, and at the time of writing of this document, UDP fragmentation
> support is under discussion and is not deployed.
> 
> >
> > And further, in the same section. There is also
> > draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram- plpmtud on "Packetization Layer Path MTU
> > Discovery for Datagram Transports". Please also be aware that there is
> > an extensive TSV-ART for draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud. Both might impact
> > the final content of this section.
> 
> The draft does not refer to draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram- plpmtud.
> 
> >
> > 2) sec 11.5:
> > "When the server receives an ICMP packet, the server verifies that the
> >    type is either 3 or 11 for an ICMPv4 [RFC0792] packet or either 1, 2,
> >    or 3 for an ICMPv6 [RFC4443] packet."
> > Restricting to a set of known types, doesn't seem to support future
> > extensibility very well...
> 
> Good point, added the following lines:
> New ICMP types or codes can be defined in future specifications. If the
> server receives an ICMP error packet, and the new type or code field can
> help the client to make use of the ICMP error notification and generate
> feedback to the application layer, the server sends the Data indication with
> an ICMP attribute conveying the new ICMP type or code.
> 
> >
> > 3) sec 12.5:
> > "Over TCP and TLS-over-TCP, the ChannelData message MUST be padded
> to
> >    a multiple of four bytes in order to ensure the alignment of
> >    subsequent messages."
> > Not exactly sure why this is useful...? Is this to align with STUN and
> > therefore make processing somehow easier? Is that really needed. And
> > exception should be easy to implement and should save some bytes which
> > is the as I understood it the whole purpose of channels, no?
> 
> This behavior is not new, it is defined and deployed in TURN
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5766#section-11.5
> 
> >
> > 4) 12.6:
> > "Note that if
> >    the Length field in the ChannelData message is 0, then there will be
> >    no data in the UDP datagram, but the UDP datagram is still formed and
> >    sent."
> > Can you maybe add some more text and explain why this is useful?
> 
> Sure, added reference to Section 4.1 in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6263
> 
> >
> > 5) sec 15:
> > RFC6824 will soon be obsoleted by draft-ietf-mptcp-rfc6824bis and
> > please s/TCP multi-path/Multipath TCP/.
> 
> Thanks, updated.
> 
> >
> > 6) Just a thought looking at section 14 and 16: It could have been
> > nice to provide an ECN feedback field from the server to the client in
> > case a ECN marked packet is received from the peer... however, I guess
> > that future work at this point in the process...
> >
> > 7) sec 18.13: Maybe I missed this because I reviewed this doc over 3
> > days, but is only the ICMP Attribute send to the client or is the
> > actual ICMP packets or as much as possible of that packet includes as well?
> 
> Yes, only the ICMP attribute is sent to the client.
> 
> >
> > 8) sec 23:
> > "Response: TURN will no longer be needed once there are no longer any
> >    NATs.  Unfortunately, as of the date of publication of this document,
> >    it no longer seems very likely that NATs will go away any time soon.
> >    However, the need for TURN will also decrease as the number of NATs
> >    with the mapping property of Endpoint-Independent Mapping [RFC4787]
> >    increases."
> > Yes... so you don't think that IPv6 will be any help here?
> 
> Yes, IPv6 will not help in some scenarios, updated Introduction to list them.
> 
>    In many enterprise networks, direct UDP transmissions are not
>    permitted between clients on the internal networks and external IP
>    addresses.  To permit media sessions in such a situation to use UDP
>    and to avoid forcing the media sessions through TCP, Enterprise
>    Firewall can be configured to allow UDP traffic relayed through an
>    Enterprise relay server.  This scenario is required to be supported
>    by the WebRTC requirements (Section 2.3.5.1 in [RFC7478]).  In
>    addition, in a SIP or WebRTC call, if the user wants IP location
>    privacy from the peer then the client can select a relay server
>    offering IP location privacy and only convey the relayed candidates
>    to the peer for ICE connectivity checks (see Section 4.2.4 in
>    [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security]).
> 
> >
> > Editorial comments:
> >
> > 1) Sec 6:
> > "The relayed transport address MUST be unique across all
> >    allocations, so it can be used to uniquely identify the allocation.
> >
> >    Both the relayed transport address and the 5-tuple MUST be unique
> >    across all allocations, so either one can be used to uniquely
> >    identify the allocation, [...]"
> > These two sentences seem quite redundant. The first one was added in
> > this draft. The second one was already there in RFC5766.
> 
> Thanks, removed the second sentence.
> 
> >
> > 2) sec 7.1:
> > "Since this specification only
> >    allows UDP between the server and the peers, it is RECOMMENDED that
> > [...]"
> > Wordings ("only allows") seems weird to me given use of other
> > proposals is at least to some extend discussed.
> 
> The specification does not allow any other protocol other than UDP between
> the server and peers (As you know, UDP is the preferred transport for media
> streams).
> 
> >
> > Nits:
> > sec 7.1.: s/the client pick a currently unused transport address/the
> > client picks a currently unused transport address/
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> Cheers,
> -Tiru
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > tram mailing list
> > tram@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram