Re: [tram] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud-10: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <> Wed, 26 September 2018 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1AB129C6A; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 13:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MxjmaxG2pAaK; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 13:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2304129385; Wed, 26 Sep 2018 13:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w8QKmhWJ078145 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:48:45 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be
To: Ben Campbell <>, The IESG <>
Cc:,, Gonzalo Camarillo <>,,
References: <>
From: Adam Roach <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 15:48:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [tram] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud-10: (with COMMENT)
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 20:48:51 -0000

On 9/26/18 2:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> I support Adam's DISCUSS. I will go a bit further to say that, even if a new
> IETF LC occurs, I would be skeptical that the dependency on PADDING in a
> standards track protocol is appropriate unless people are willing to argue that
> RFC 5780 has become mature enough that it could reasonably be promoted to
> standards track.

To be clear, I agree with this sentiment, which is a part of why I 
suggested the STUN PMTUD mechanism be experimental.

> Another alternative might be to re-describe PADDING in this draft, as it is
> used in the context of the draft. I don't normally love that sort of
> duplication, but it might be appropriate here.

If we go down the path of defining an attribute in this document, I 
would suggest that the WG consider using a new TLV. The original purpose 
of PADDING was to force fragmentation. This document is using it for a 
somewhat different purpose.