Re: [tram] Review of TURNbis-11

["Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tram [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Marc Petit-
> Huguenin
> Sent: Friday, February 9, 2018 6:54 PM
> To: Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [tram] Review of TURNbis-11
> 
> Hi,
> 
> My responses inline.
> 
> On 02/09/2018 03:53 AM, Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy wrote:
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > Please see inline
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: tram [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Marc Petit-
> >> Huguenin
> >> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 10:16 PM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Subject: [tram] Review of TURNbis-11
> >>
> >> This is the second part of my review of TURNbis-11, i.e. everything
> >> but the dual allocation part.
> >>
> >> - Section 2.1, last paragraph:
> >>
> >> May be a reference to RFC 5764 and RFC 7983 can be useful here.  Same
> >> in section 4, second paragraph and following.  Same at the beginning
> >> of section 11.  Again in section 11.6 (if multiplexed, the message in
> >> the reserved range is not necessarily discarded).
> >
> > Even if the same host transport address is used for other protocols,
> incoming packets to the TURN channel can be identified by just examining
> the source address of the packet.
> > May be I am missing something, I did not get a problem ?
> 
> It was just an attempt to make TURN implementers aware of the demux
> issues.

Got it, added the following line:
The algorithm of demultiplexing packets received from
multiple protocols is discussed in [RFC7983].

> 
> >
> >>
> >> - Section 2.2, first paragraph:
> >>
> >> I think that an informative reference to RFC 7635 may be useful
> >> there, as alternative to the STUN authentication mechanism.
> >
> > Yes, updated.
> >
> >>
> >> - Section 2.9:
> >>
> >> The whole 2.9 section and subsections looks normative and so should
> >> be moved after section 3, perhaps on their own top level section.
> >
> > Done.
> >
> >>
> >> - Section 4, 4th paragraph:
> >>
> >> I would replace "For each allocation..." by "For each Allocate
> >> request...", because of the dual allocation feature.
> >
> > Fixed.
> >
> >>
> >> - Section 4, 12th paragraph:
> >>
> >> Should make clear clear that UDP covers also DTLS.
> >
> > Yes, updated.
> >
> >>
> >> - Section 6.1, 2nd paragraph:
> >>
> >> If the port is multiplexed with other protocols (RTP, WebRtc, etc..)
> >> then it has to reuse an existing socket.  The document should explain this.
> >
> > It's already covered in Section 2.1 (last paragraph).
> >
> >>
> >> - Section 6.2, 3th paragraph:
> >>
> >> Is it time to recommend DTLS instead of UDP?  In that case we need to
> >> make DTLS mandatory in section 4 paragraph 11 (and I support that
> change).
> >
> > No, DTLS has both advantages (e.g. dictionary attack)  and disadvantages
> (e.g. double encryption of application data).
> 
> OK.
> 
> >
> >>
> >> - Section 6.4, second bullet:
> >>
> >> Replace "...SRV procedures)." with "...DNS resolution procedures)."
> >
> > Any specific reason for the replacement ?
> 
> This is to not exclude NPATR procedures (RFC 5928).

Updated second bullet.

Cheers,
-Tiru

> 
> >
> >>
> >> - Sections 14, 15 and 16:
> >>
> >> These are no longer new methods and attributes.  See also the next
> >> comment.
> >
> > Fixed.
> >
> >>
> >> - Section 19:
> >>
> >> Here you need to update the existing methods, attributes and error
> >> code so the IANA registries point to the RFC-to-be, then you request
> >> allocation for the new attributes.  See section 17 of STUNbis on a
> >> way to do that (that was done following a discussion with the IANA
> representative at an IETF meeting).
> >
> > Thanks, updated draft.
> >
> >>
> >> Note that ICMP should be comprehension-mandatory, not optional, as
> we
> >> do not want an old client to reject a Data indication with an ICMP attribute.
> >
> > If the indication contains unknown comprehension-required attributes, the
> behavior is the indication is discarded and processing ceases.
> >
> >>
> >> Also, I do not know what this SendErr method is.
> >
> > Removed SendErr (stale entry from a previous version of the draft).
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Nits
> >> ----
> >>
> >> Section 1:
> >>
> >> s/connection to the Internet ./connection to the Internet./
> >>
> >> Section 2.4, first paragraph:
> >>
> >> The text switches between the words "mechanisms" and "way".  Choose
> >> one.
> >>
> >> Section 6.2, item 8:
> >>
> >> s/ADDITIONAL- ADDRESS-FAMILY/ADDITIONAL-ADDRESS-FAMILY/
> >>
> >> Section 12.1, "Preferred Behavior"
> >>
> >> s/Label Field[RFC3697]/Label Field [RFC3697]/
> >>
> >> Section 21:
> >>
> >> s/ADDRESS-ERRR-CODE/ADDRESS-ERR-CODE/
> >>
> >> Section 22:
> >>
> >> s/orginal/original/
> >
> > Thanks, fixed all above nits.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Tiru
> >
> >>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Email: [e-mail]
> Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
> Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug