Re: [tram] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-turn-third-party-authz-13: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Brandon Williams <[e-mail]>]

On 04/15/2015 12:09 PM, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tram [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Brandon Williams
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 6:07 PM
>>
>> I don't think OOB communication b/w the STUN and auth servers is a
>> solution to the problem of wanting to provide additional details in the
>> token. It defeats a large part of the purpose of moving to a token model in
>> the first place, which was to avoid the need for these two servers to have to
>> communicate directly with each other.
>
> The size of the metadata will determine if in-band or OOB is required.

The point is that OOB direct communication between the STUN and auth 
servers is not even an option for many 3rd party auth use cases. Also, 
if we don't provide a mechanism now then I think it may hurt interop to 
do so later, since servers that don't understand the extra information 
won't know how to handle it.

--Brandon

-- 
Brandon Williams; Chief Architect
Cloud Networking; Akamai Technologies Inc.