IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> Wed, 17 September 2014 12:43 UTC

Return-Path: <sperreault@jive.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 88F401A041F for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 05:43:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 SHjOE2zw3lG7 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 05:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com (mail-lb0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0CC21A0310 for <tram@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 05:43:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id u10so1765449lbd.27 for <tram@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 05:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=w7btBRNpIv+hY51pXikV6z5ni7WR91VGxjWcOYiLsUM=; b=K/VxCrKisjRRcG1ihM4VEVU/U8X8If+0ztEwojs3JQSgY+3NDn8i+dD+jw5Ps/ozCd 1tClLT6ss7xCIajFHTU/WLVpioKV27fVvatVEddZ7WDKvfkn66TS4HK9bpnvtmDkx2l0 aMJVIaXGm542IoiE/nYuK26w0gfzaLhp+Fq6Zt2AIk3Re+p6vyvm2eVSKWKnGwFQoyT3 v42CKGeq4ycTCcPK6FyqSssldTRgkpKMYdwxwooR9PQ8vNNbOzxXKW0YufRAVL+ULdbm XynbSw9HOIj3g2sQq14Eqi5ncCuI8QDn3xKvdkupQ59Bu7OESA748T/zhyN14CX8Ph81 A5tw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkYkpvhnqOY3cJvhBd6+UDb4EE7yu4987YFJ4PAqvGaDe8mciOP+06JjpCRqivp+G04s4QX
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.130.41 with SMTP id ob9mr40837859lbb.12.1410957802176; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 05:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.137.6 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Sep 2014 05:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXFtovkGegh5nieS5CWxUg6q8MQNm=V4od=J=BukkbPvA@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>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:43:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CANO7kWDH0X3+ai0VxT0FaQUWA9jACrpAJPqLV+8wANcRuk9tLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b342ba69794a10503423609"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/PvCZ1WYsuUn1EX4gleH4uNtFAbs
Cc: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com>, "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <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: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 12:43:55 -0000

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.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.

A comment for the authors: for each STUN usage you list, please refer to
the corresponding RFC.

At a minimum, remove: "(e.g., any labels starting with "stun.")"
>

The whole paragraph is hard to understand IMHO. I would rewrite simply:
"stun: This label is used as a fallback for STUN usages that do not have a
corresponding ALPN label."

Simon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email