Re: [tram] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tram-alpn-06.txt> (Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) labels for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Usages) to Proposed Standard

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014, Prashanth Patil (praspati) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Hi Adam,
> The concerning use cases described in the draft were to indicate that the new ALPN identifiers could also be considered for WebRTC firewall traversal (as pointed out in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hutton-rtcweb-nat-firewall-considerations-03#section-4.2).
> End to end identifier negotiation is still the goal of this draft i.e. to negotiate the use of stun and its usages.
>
> We'll remove these use cases and stick to end to end negotiation.
>
>
Just so I'm clear, should I be expecting a -07?

Thanks,

Spencer


> -Prashanth
>
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 15:41, Adam Langley <[e-mail] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');>> wrote:
>
> >> Is your concern specific to TRAM's proposed use of ALPN, or does it apply to
> >> ALPN in general?
>
> > In general I think the IETF should be promoting the end-to-end
> > principle. My concern is specifically about TRAM implicitly endorsing
> > the idea that the network should be applying policy like that.
>
> > (There's also a fair amount of irony in that fact that the second
> > example suggests ALPN be used to get around the fact that networks
> > often discriminate based on TCP port numbers, and the first example is
> > suggesting that networks do exactly the same thing to ALPN
> > identifiers.)
>
> > Cheers
>
> > AGL
>
>
>
>