Re: [tram] First post

Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com> Fri, 15 November 2013 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mom040267@gmail.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 20AC811E8190 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:29:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.933
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.933 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nt3AQVwlC32X for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22d.google.com (mail-pd0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5341211E812F for <tram@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:28:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id x10so3935596pdj.32 for <tram@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:28:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=APCZOY1eIt6K60z+Phud5GEc+EHiyZ+ScH5M3SeH0fQ=; b=c3vNu6EwUbzZKfG+U4lRpHPCMW7RBFX+TBglvIA3exhr5aqI6gdDI7MwFDx4JoF6dp VoQ2jkkFh070Al+UFfvhP94LPWkmJv2rwLP4ugwJs36T7qceFw8ZnlG7C1+i7lWDLP9p 0DaVqJZIcF0EyG+SVR7eh57IPpdyMfRiIunJmINKx7055oOXpG0OlCZvxiDtUrZl0Vxw f7gI5X/5qkQocBlwPPbAX69IfA8CSMIJC1mjXvj3NFixwR40L7hISWZxcuSAXDTBsjRZ JhicodXwpM7kJa0DcZjCG+p+WNlBmdj/k3HxnIbFXNzPAz0IGn22+ZlwWOSYFFxhWwzK 9IPQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.196.227 with SMTP id ip3mr974236pbc.163.1384547337706; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:28:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.68.147.131 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:28:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-1UBtfEnk4k15-Zeyrb272izGR-Jsy6gqtA51dyTbhFzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52866E37.1030800@viagenie.ca> <CALDtMrK5X4euTOwwdGJNkOGEar1KdCXpZvOnR-MgJfnY1LzAKg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-1Xc_mF+TOhX+UjNSKZZCSsaoMXGsq-je0i8f9mjpctaw@mail.gmail.com> <CALDtMrLDHLQS9tzkMJvCqGzMrCup4B-7Wd2QzXCfWVkEVdsWEA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-1UBtfEnk4k15-Zeyrb272izGR-Jsy6gqtA51dyTbhFzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 12:28:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CALDtMr+hgMLHjWtpfSMJ3TXY9G1c+eFE6MFZKNOA1Pe+Kf5MHA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff1c81e3d25d604eb3d0cf1"
Cc: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>, tram@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tram] First post
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:29:10 -0000

Yes, that would be an extension to the TURN that allows "session stealing".
I went through their draft, it looks reasonable and implementable, and I am
sure that it is useful for mobile devices. The security section of their
draft sounds reasonable, too:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wing-mmusic-ice-mobility-05.html




On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> ... since TURN binds the session to the 5-tuple. makes sense.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> MICE may be interesting for WebRTC on mobile devices. It allows a
>> "mobile" TURN client: when a mobile device is moving from tower to tower,
>> it may change its IP address; but it still wants to keep the same TURN
>> session. They introduce some new behavior and 3 new TURN attributes to
>> achieve that task.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>wrote:
>>
>>> How does MICE impact TURN?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Oleg Moskalenko <mom040267@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> MMUSIC has an interesting draft on TURN mobility (MICE) that I am
>>>> watching and I am going to implement. I wonder whether the authors of the
>>>> draft may be interested in the TURN evolution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Simon Perreault <
>>>> simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Any objection against sending the following to rtcweb, pntaw, and
>>>>> behave? Any other lists that should be included?
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>
>>>>> ====================
>>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> A few of us have been working on a proposal for a new working group
>>>>> that would focus on enhancements to STUN and TURN. The proposed name is
>>>>> TRAM (Turn Revised And Modernized) and discussion is happening in <
>>>>> tram@ietf.org>.
>>>>> Subscribe link: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the charter we have been working on. If you would like to
>>>>> comment and/or get involved, please do so on the TRAM mailing list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon (and many others!)
>>>>>
>>>>>  Turn Revised And Modernized (tram)
>>>>>> ----------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) was published as RFC 5766 in
>>>>>> April
>>>>>> 2010.  Until recently the protocol had only a rather limited
>>>>>> deployment.  This
>>>>>> is primarily because its primary use case is as one of the NAT
>>>>>> traversal
>>>>>> methods of the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) framework
>>>>>> (RFC
>>>>>> 5245).  This inherent dependency on ICE combined with the fact that
>>>>>> ICE itself
>>>>>> was slow to achieve widespread adoption because other alternative
>>>>>> mechanisms
>>>>>> were historically used by the VoIP industry were the causes of the
>>>>>> initial
>>>>>> lack of interest.  This situation has changed drastically as ICE, and
>>>>>> consequently TURN, are mandatory to implement in WebRTC, which is a
>>>>>> set of
>>>>>> technologies developed at the IETF and W3C aiming to enable Real Time
>>>>>> Communication on the Web.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because of the ubiquity of the Web and of the new opportunities
>>>>>> created by the
>>>>>> arrival of WebRTC, there is a renewed interest in TURN and ICE, as
>>>>>> evidenced by
>>>>>> the recent work updating the ICE framework, as well as standardizing
>>>>>> the URIs
>>>>>> used to access a STUN [RFC7064] or TURN [RFC7065] server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The goal of the TRAM Working Group is to consolidate the various
>>>>>> initiatives
>>>>>> to update TURN and STUN, including the definition of new transport and
>>>>>> authentication mechanisms that make STUN and TURN more suitable for
>>>>>> the WebRTC
>>>>>> environment.  The Working Group will closely coordinate with the
>>>>>> appropriate
>>>>>> Working Groups, including RTCWEB, MMUSIC, and HTTPBIS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current list of deliverable is:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - DTLS transport for TURN
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Candidate draft: draft-petithuguenin-tram-turn-dtls
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   TURN defines three transports: UDP, TCP, and TLS. A straightforward
>>>>>> extension
>>>>>>   of this set is DTLS, enabling secure datagram-oriented transport.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - New authentication mechanism for TURN
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Problem analysis: draft-reddy-behave-turn-auth
>>>>>>   Candidate draft: draft-uberti-behave-turn-rest, OAuth has also been
>>>>>> suggested
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   The current authentication mechanism for TURN, which is reused from
>>>>>> STUN, has
>>>>>>   been designed with a SIP account database in mind. The new RTCWEB
>>>>>> usages,
>>>>>>   which are mostly based on web applications, do not fit that model.
>>>>>> A new
>>>>>>   authentication mechanism optimized for such web applications will
>>>>>> be created.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - TURN server auto-discovery mechanism for enterprise and ISPs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Candidate draft: TBD
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Current TURN server discovery is based on the presence of SRV
>>>>>> and/or NAPTR DNS
>>>>>>   records. These records are usually under the administrative control
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>   application or service provider, not the enterprise or the ISP on
>>>>>> whose
>>>>>>   network the client is situated. Enterprises or ISPs wishing to
>>>>>> provide their
>>>>>>   own TURN server, in an attempt to reduce so-called "triangle
>>>>>> routing", need a
>>>>>>   new auto-discovery mechanism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - STUN-bis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Candidate draft: TBD
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   A new revision of RFC 5389 will contain:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   - Various bug fixes
>>>>>>   - STUN hash algorithm agility (currently only SHA-1 is allowed)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - TURN-bis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Candidate draft: TBD
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   A new revision of RFC 5766 will contain:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   - Various bug fixes
>>>>>>   - Support for multi-tenant servers
>>>>>>     (Servers always send the same REALM attribute. No realm
>>>>>> negotiation phase
>>>>>>      currently exists.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Goals and Milestones:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [TBD]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
>>>>> NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
>>>>> STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> tram mailing list
>>>>> tram@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tram mailing list
>>>> tram@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>