Re: [tram] Mirja Kühlewind's Yes on draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-16: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 18 April 2018 06:11 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 C7F1C12702E; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 23:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
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=ham autolearn_force=no
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 TMX-cYbfdwRN; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 23:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE76C12D77B; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 23:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w3I6BfJP040988 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Apr 2018 01:11:42 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mirja_K=c3=bchlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: tram-chairs@ietf.org, tasveren@rbbn.com, Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-tram-stunbis@ietf.org, tram@ietf.org
References: <152390695800.19624.250040937113641569.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <f0f22504-17cc-65b7-9311-c28c91e1b523@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 01:11:36 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <152390695800.19624.250040937113641569.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/fCPJW2tLCNlAwR8RFv9rb0lwbUs>
Subject: Re: [tram] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Yes_on_draft-ietf-tram?= =?utf-8?q?-stunbis-16=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 18 Apr 2018 06:11:45 -0000

On 4/16/18 2:29 PM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> 8) sec 17.6: Isn't "stuns  5349/upd" used for DTLS? If so, it should be
> registered!


Just because I had the same question and chased it down: it was 
(re-)registered by RFC 7350, and so does not need updating.

/a