Re: [tram] RFC 7635 on Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Extension for Third-Party Authorization

Tiru, thanks for the fix (I suppose that the new Mobility document,
version 04 to be published).

But in the coturn server, I still have a conflict problem. It is
implementing the ORIGIN draft, too; and for the ORIGIN attribute, I
currently have 0x802F tentatively assigned.

I understand that we do not know when and if IANA will ever assign
real numbers for those attributes because I am not sure which one
document will ever become an RFC.

I know that there are people who are using implementation of those
drafts for experimental purposes. Can we avoid that new conflict ?
Could you please assign a different number to MIBILITY-TICKET ? I
suppose that any number is going to be temporary, anyway, and
everything has to go through the normal IANA application etc. In
coturn, I have 0x8030 available - can we use that for MIBILITY-TICKET
?

Thanks !
Oleg

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)
<tireddy@cisco.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tram [mailto:tram-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Oleg Moskalenko
>> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 1:20 PM
>> To: tram@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [tram] RFC 7635 on Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)
>> Extension for Third-Party Authorization
>>
>> With this RFC 7635 issued, we now have a conflict with STUN attributes in
>> different documents.
>>
>> RFC 7635 suggest 0x802E attribute for THIRD-PARTY-AUTHORIZATION.
>>
>> The same value is used for MOBILITY-TICKET in TURN-mobility draft:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-tram-turn-mobility-03
>>
>> That has to be fixed.
>
> Yes, fixed in my local copy (assigned 0x802F).
>
> -Tiru
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Oleg
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:55 PM,  <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
>> >
>> >
>> >         RFC 7635
>> >
>> >         Title:      Session Traversal Utilities for NAT
>> >                     (STUN) Extension for Third-Party Authorization
>> >         Author:     T. Reddy, P. Patil,
>> >                     R. Ravindranath, J. Uberti
>> >         Status:     Standards Track
>> >         Stream:     IETF
>> >         Date:       August 2015
>> >         Mailbox:    tireddy@cisco.com,
>> >                     praspati@cisco.com,
>> >                     rmohanr@cisco.com,
>> >                     justin@uberti.name
>> >         Pages:      24
>> >         Characters: 51753
>> >         Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None
>> >
>> >         I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-16.txt
>> >
>> >         URL:        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7635
>> >
>> >         DOI:        http://dx.doi.org/10.17487/RFC7635
>> >
>> > This document proposes the use of OAuth 2.0 to obtain and validate
>> > ephemeral tokens that can be used for Session Traversal Utilities for
>> > NAT (STUN) authentication.  The usage of ephemeral tokens ensures that
>> > access to a STUN server can be controlled even if the tokens are
>> > compromised.
>> >
>> > This document is a product of the TURN Revised and Modernized Working
>> Group of the IETF.
>> >
>> > This is now a Proposed Standard.
>> >
>> > STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track
>> > protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and
>> > suggestions for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of
>> > the Official Internet Protocol Standards
>> > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state
>> > and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
>> >
>> > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
>> >   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>> >   https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
>> >
>> > For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
>> > For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html
>> >
>> > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
>> > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org.
>> > Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are
>> > for unlimited distribution.
>> >
>> >
>> > The RFC Editor Team
>> > Association Management Solutions, LLC
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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