Re: [tram] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com> Fri, 18 January 2019 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.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 9079A1312C8; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:12:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -19.052
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-4.553, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 TXmGuPA7ieaZ; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15EC81312C2; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:12:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=14148; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1547835162; x=1549044762; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=neIdhk+O8Jsc/Ven3VxhZT4MJzQ/sLPcJuw8bht1Df4=; b=iUF5f8U5DHP7lPnFfwS6+qUMJwglhVPKvyrsymFU0MpdKes3k/YVBMko 88AWBtD0bD5m0zPH7xJZXBUgO5/O7YcSYlzu+Z/Lpt1O2Q0Fu8xpg0OkA 8v4c0BEto36IQWTR3P9pXCCu2rTYsEbyDK7T5Vz4XUP1tmp9d4E0rAl3V A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AHAAAtFkJc/51dJa1kGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBUgQBAQEBCwGBDXZ1cycKg3eUAoFoJYkliHSFaIF7CwEBhGw?= =?us-ascii?q?CF4JFIjUIDQEDAQECAQECbSiFSgEBAQMBI1YQAgEIGCcDAgICHxEUEQIEDgW?= =?us-ascii?q?DIoEeTAMNCKwTgS+ICQ2CHYxBF4FAP4ERJwwTgkyCV4JiglExgiYCi2CEEYZ?= =?us-ascii?q?wiwwzCQKKeYNngzkYkhSQOIgLgjMCERSBJyEBNYFWcBVlAYJBglGOC0ExiHW?= =?us-ascii?q?BHwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,491,1539648000"; d="scan'208,217";a="227455095"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Jan 2019 18:12:40 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (xch-aln-008.cisco.com [173.36.7.18]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0IICeGT018551 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 18 Jan 2019 18:12:40 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-009.cisco.com (173.36.7.19) by XCH-ALN-008.cisco.com (173.36.7.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:12:39 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-009.cisco.com ([173.36.7.19]) by XCH-ALN-009.cisco.com ([173.36.7.19]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:12:39 -0600
From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>, Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>, Simon Perreault <Simon.Perreault@logmein.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "tram-chairs@ietf.org" <tram-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud@ietf.org>, "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@rbbn.com>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [tram] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUkuV9WRgg08P2B0upj6+dKkdDsqWvaMSAgAaI0YA=
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 18:12:39 +0000
Message-ID: <2EE82D0D-5024-4C71-8F25-0506D5530814@cisco.com>
References: <153834237082.13405.1228259718885034461.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKKJt-fouMOJa+eGUwEmQL+Uv5Fqe5KNM_fC0YxmhYojpFNzaA@mail.gmail.com> <CA447D15-2E65-4340-9FF5-4700A53335ED@logmein.com> <CAKKJt-cG=R5ide_qHx5hNKbYwxhDKmwk0tOQutNPYBJp8L7HUA@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR15MB1200F7BE766A80509FBFBE75FAA00@MWHPR15MB1200.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <CAKKJt-eXBSJQeKkvNDhhFrpoOkwZvO=GYsZshh6=50htiHKnGw@mail.gmail.com> <VI1PR07MB61277B1650EE2008D81F0F4E83800@VI1PR07MB6127.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAKKJt-ewHuocx7nfohdr0+7V2XDmFxTWOVXLffmKAd_QoOpdmA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-ewHuocx7nfohdr0+7V2XDmFxTWOVXLffmKAd_QoOpdmA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.150.54.123]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2EE82D0D50244C718F250506D5530814ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.18, xch-aln-008.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-6.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/v0jQAEXdoQI2ElqObhQGqM7UIBo>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 01:09:03 -0800
Subject: Re: [tram] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 18:12:51 -0000

Thanks, Spencer.  We will proceed with bringing the definition of PADDING into the current draft.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On Jan 14, 2019, at 9:25 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi, Gonzalo,

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 8:05 AM Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com<mailto:gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>> wrote:
What is the next step here?

Gonzalo

On 13-Dec-18 16:27, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> Hi, Simon,
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 7:12 AM Simon Perreault
> <Simon.Perreault@logmein.com<mailto:Simon.Perreault@logmein.com> <mailto:Simon.Perreault@logmein.com<mailto:Simon.Perreault@logmein.com>>> wrote:
>
>     - Pull the definition of PADDING into this document. Declare that
>     we've gathered sufficient experience with PADDING that it now
>     warrants being elevated to Standards Track. That is, it's been
>     proven to work.____
>
>     __ __
>
>     This is plausible. It solves the first-order problem. ____
>
>     __ __
>
>     I note that RFC 5780 defined a number of new attributes. Is pulling
>     PADDING forward the right thing to do, or are there others that
>     would also qualify (so, perhaps a status change for RFC 5780)? ____
>
>     __ __
>
>     I don’t think the others have been implemented much, so that’s why I
>     think only pulling PADDING makes sense. If I remember correctly, I
>     only implemented PADDING in Numb (I don’t have access to the source
>     code anymore so can’t be sure).____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Anyone else with an opinion?
>
>
> That's helpful information.
>
> We should wait for anyone else with information to weigh in, but if it's
> correct that the other experimental attributes haven't been implemented
> and deployed in a way that would provide guidance for standards-track
> use, I think defining PADDING in this document makes more sense to me
> than adding a downref to an experimental RFC that we wouldn't consider
> if the reference was using anything except PADDING.

No one has objected in the past month (which included holidays, but I would have asked this question with a week or two timeout, if the holidays had not been coming up).

I think bringing the definition of PADDING into the current draft is the right thing to do.

If TRAM people thought that the other experimental attributes in RFC 5780 don't have enough implementation experience to justify moving them past Experimental status, changing the status of RFC 5780 to Historic might be appropriate at some point, but that's not related to the conversation we're having now, and I haven't asked a question about that, so I'll ignore that for now.

Thanks for your help with this.

Spencer

>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
>     ____
>
>     __ __
>
>     Simon____
>