IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tram] WGLC draft-ietf-tram-alpn-00

"Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com> Thu, 25 September 2014 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <praspati@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tram@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 702451A1A58 for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:35:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.286
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.286 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 hXWg3CQzlD3Y for <tram@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D61F51A1A42 for <tram@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6046; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1411619749; x=1412829349; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=RK6pL7wlhBCoMhdBHYzx+nzXudE6ezPqoSk2oDres+0=; b=PFp+dMAvBFAPu8hQ42a5XEhhalmqWK1vCM8+2zfENlTlkoW6SoJ/zY2A 3w/s4zpmPdREVte9pjTcd2g3vO2yDG3iarJoV0HjrmxfGlYZOYSrETlUd LtsQrLGcEQgXqrE5ASdYwB0S7aF+B3g8JTOgg+qMPCkv9uHLCkMbp1kVq k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkQFAHCbI1StJA2K/2dsb2JhbABWCoJIRoEqBNIWAYELFgF6hAMBAQEEeRACAQgOAwMBAgEnByERFAkIAgQBDQWIKgMRvFINhyABF41ugVRLEQeESwWLD4ZPiTOCEI8OhkaDYmyBSIECAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.04,594,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="81060824"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2014 04:35:48 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s8P4Zmlo028804 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:35:48 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.7.38]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 23:35:48 -0500
From: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com>
To: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [tram] WGLC draft-ietf-tram-alpn-00
Thread-Index: AQHP0iZTcDYu+ea/iEGE0aPHlSxTTZwFmXMAgAGlYACAABRKgIACCl+AgALe9wCABcOeAA==
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:35:48 +0000
Message-ID: <D049970B.4F32C%praspati@cisco.com>
References: <CANO7kWCiU275DnNsJ7pn8ALjpV5qVViCQUQS8VOgubArGYG_5g@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXWLhAggZwP3ZhDsDMnx6ueYOjrMw12=tD9xEryx_5Z0A@mail.gmail.com> <C7219C6D-A887-4E05-8869-996F8B32D810@cisco.com> <CABkgnnV_u32ZLpoKxX7Z7ExbJAEOXgR9BgiZnRg7vEWFhaZ4rw@mail.gmail.com> <AEE73BD1-650C-41C5-A904-CD8E0E754EB3@cisco.com> <CABkgnnV5_anUGTcBFqfZOPSJ_GgT3XLsq2R1_1_dvUVb9yt8jQ@mail.gmail.com> <D03E1542.4DDBC%praspati@cisco.com> <CABkgnnXFtovkGegh5nieS5CWxUg6q8MQNm=V4od=J=BukkbPvA@mail.gmail.com> <CANO7kWDH0X3+ai0VxT0FaQUWA9jACrpAJPqLV+8wANcRuk9tLw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXcGRCb9r_f17YEEfVxuiWbySBe+CQnv-Dj9YgH_WdNEA@mail.gmail.com> <CANO7kWDeVFJq5i0iLxc7VqMS=OdMYPT-h3OcGt3k=Bzi+WuF3w@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnW1P3OQ38-BM6sqwY8a2pPfkawUam_KDBmX8EFw12hvdA@mail.gmail.com> <CANO7kWDkW6qhp8KsmpxSujNCD2J6YSdAGX7Q1QN5Q-ONRZCEjg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANO7kWDkW6qhp8KsmpxSujNCD2J6YSdAGX7Q1QN5Q-ONRZCEjg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.3.140616
x-originating-ip: [10.65.56.34]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D049970B4F32Cpraspaticiscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/jcqHf7h-AIq8zIBnYEXx373GkY0
Cc: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tram] WGLC draft-ietf-tram-alpn-00
X-BeenThere: tram@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:35:51 -0000

It seems like there is no objection to removing the 'stun' label from the draft; we'll submit a revision accordingly. The new revision will only include labels to identify the two specific usages i.e., turn & nat-discovery. No additional label will be defined to identify other STUN usages.

-Prashanth

From: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com<mailto:sperreault@jive.com>>
Date: Sunday, September 21, 2014 11:34 PM
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>>
Cc: Prashanth Patil <praspati@cisco.com<mailto:praspati@cisco.com>>, "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com<mailto:gsalguei@cisco.com>>, "tram@ietf.org<mailto:tram@ietf.org>" <tram@ietf.org<mailto:tram@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [tram] WGLC draft-ietf-tram-alpn-00


As individual participant, I don't find this argument convincing. No game developer would spend energy getting his own label, even if the registry was FCFS. Also, I think that a "stun" label is still providing information that could be somewhat valuable. But I also don't think that this is an important issue.

Now, as chair I think we're starting to rehash the same arguments, and I think we should move on. To me, the most sensible course of action if we don't reach consensus would be to do nothing, i.e., not define a "stun" label. We can always revisit this issue later if it becomes a pain point. For now I think everyone can live without it.

Can anyone not live with this course of action?

Simon

Le 2014-09-19 18:13, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> a écrit :
On 18 September 2014 08:04, Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com<mailto:sperreault@jive.com>> wrote:
> Agreed. But can we agree that if someone did want to do it, one could
> rightfully expect it to work?

I would say that when someone chooses to do that, the application that
they are using should then ask for a new identifier.

If you don't care to identify your application properly, how about you
not use ALPN?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email