[tram] some nits in i-d turnbis-27

Noriyuki Torii <torii0573@gmail.com> Tue, 09 July 2019 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <torii0573@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 88044120075 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, PDS_NO_HELO_DNS=1.295, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 3JXIpSpVhBC5 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32d.google.com (mail-ot1-x32d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32d]) (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 48909120020 for <tram@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id z23so250080ote.13 for <tram@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IN0pDbEM3jMbe/yL0WqG3I4oaFrT5iui3+JrJYSZfqA=; b=KuBHZnsCe8wxMizQks9O2LgBLqLmnuNfI6u3fajDZ1QJS1+XnhhFUu9CPBozRePrPD GlrbDJaQ+qHYpW/SzEQXou1lY3G31oboFgdt1TJTSDQ6Q8joOTET8bAFL2dTXyaYOffZ YTes6qKO7EoidX6byZYckPq0Y/gtY+P0UXz+g4EP/WNn3rdMSPYyYji8LgSvUx0+yYHJ WmMpGXWzfeqn8h8nBRe1NSfqqyeeW+tEHmIPfmnVymTjKjOZ3X1KoV0VAIcrp5V41P2F vX9AjT7S/b8eYVVBfXQZ+3N4LjzO7+G8W3VzVhBSrQqxAlPWTvdnam9Pvk4OzSIJWKFu YAew==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IN0pDbEM3jMbe/yL0WqG3I4oaFrT5iui3+JrJYSZfqA=; b=Ac3ZayHruDXQ+6EdC+45Urj67ARsojm1L77I4Ym77pzaSo10CX7RKJsASIwiweTIgw PGAVE7e27VBXkH8EouIh+JwKDQCZc5/UOie06a1XrKK6c8kQ5dKDeZyjAbMRO5ezzswh 8YftN2UXM8mTGovPiyWeY/L1ZtLrGiWpvDFUDIGaA5doja+YCgP2jFu3ywyHEEEcjaWU t42162O8fCPxuI/rtQve0ihj/Z8APgoW6R0a5GvK5wEriI2jnHkgYf6XZn9GlKMpH0nD +isibAylVyRjPwYAz2R/L7Y7Vxkgw9yKrYKXCUqO27A/DWrY8b6F0xRNbqm2v/4UD+iT S3NQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVrkvc1ncu4ieg32JUB91fg4/nLJmhVxoU3CTo4ig0jc+rqBJEy NOQF3WHAtwjRytCnHhXV7R7EO1q5CN5F40TH1bUN+vLe
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzEaZ0/cMEtE1/RalAUR9e4hH4tv9EtXZu3uigxrsuC11nFUnw+t8JF8mHFJp4XwN3P35ihiSMvTS5+vesqIxY=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:57c6:: with SMTP id q6mr21318380oti.17.1562715695502; Tue, 09 Jul 2019 16:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Noriyuki Torii <torii0573@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 08:41:24 +0900
Message-ID: <CABEjbRLJMz_U5kZUDxDD5Uift_djNiomNNcjQTETtVPd05p+7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: tram@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/h1q4eiGJrojBJCcE6Wmf0G7AQsc>
Subject: [tram] some nits in i-d turnbis-27
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
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." <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: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 23:41:37 -0000

To whom it may concern,

I had read I-D of TURNbis-27 and found some points would like to be shared.
Hope this may help for improvements.

page 25
> 6.  Allocations
>
>    All TURN operations revolve around allocations, and all TURN messages
>    are associated with either a single or dual allocation.

The document refers to single and dual allocation for the first time here,
but there seems no explicit definitions about what a single or dual allocation
actually is in any section of the document.
Readers can only infer meanings of those from later description.
I guess it would be preferrable having some explanations about these words
in the terminology of section 2.
---

page 30
>        If the
>        server can partially meet the request, i.e. if it can only
>        allocate one relayed transport address of a specific address
>        type, then it includes ADDRESS-ERROR-CODE attribute in the
>        response to inform the client the reason for partial failure of
>        the request.  The error code value signaled in the ADDRESS-
>        ERROR-CODE attribute could be 440 (Address Family not Supported)
>        or 508 (Insufficient Capacity).

Readers may wonder (at least I did) whether a server will reply with
Allocate success or error response when a request resulted into partial
failure. Readers must wait until section 7.3 to get the answer for this
question.
Perhaps some additional explanation will be appreciated here.
---

page 32
>   Once the allocation is created, the server replies with a success
>   response.  The success response contains:
>
>   o  An XOR-RELAYED-ADDRESS attribute containing the relayed transport
>      address.

Here seems only a single allocation is in concern. Additional description
for a dual allocation will be needed.
---

page 47
>   o  If the XOR-PEER-ADDRESS attribute contains an address of an
>      address family that is not the same as that of a relayed transport
>      address for the allocation, the server MUST generate an error
>      response with the 443 (Peer Address Family Mismatch) response
>      code.
>
>   If any of these tests fail, the server replies with a 400 (Bad
>   Request) error.

The document says initially "response with the 443" and later
"replies with a 400", so the acutual response is ambiguous.
---

page 61
> 18.4.  DATA
>
> The DATA attribute is present in all Send and Data indications.

I think not all Data indications have the DATA attribute, especially
when a Data indication carries an ICMP notification with the ICMP
attribute, although section 11.5. doesn't say explicitly that such an
indication MUST NOT have the DATA attribute.
---

page 62
>   RFFU:  Reserved For Future Use.
>
>   The other 7 bits of the attribute's value must be set to zero on
>   transmission and ignored on reception.

"The other 7 bits" actually refers to the RFFU field, so some fix seems
to be needed.
---

page 63
> 18.12.  ADDRESS-ERROR-CODE Attribute

and page 64
> 18.13.  ICMP Attribute

These words "Attribute" seem to be unnecessary and removal would be
preferable for alignment with other attribute descriptions in section 18.
---

page 64
>   Reserved:  at this point, the 13 bits in the Reserved field MUST be
>      set to zero by the client and MUST be ignored by the server.

Each fields of ADDRESS-ERROR-CODE Attribute must be set by the server,
so this description is the other way around.
---

page 75
>   An attacker can send packets to B as if they came
>   from A by sending packets towards A with a spoofed IP address of B.

Host A and B are replaced each other in before half and latter half.
---

Best regards,

Noriyuki Torii