Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-25
"Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com> Thu, 13 June 2019 08:43 UTC
Return-Path: <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@mcafee.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73691120285; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 01:43:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mcafee.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 7AxUI51SYX4X; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 01:43:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DNVWSMAILOUT1.mcafee.com (dnvwsmailout1.mcafee.com [161.69.31.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2E771200C3; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 01:43:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-NAI-Header: Modified by McAfee Email Gateway (5500)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mcafee.com; s=s_mcafee; t=1560414855; h=From: To:CC:Subject:Thread-Topic:Thread-Index:Date: Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Accept-Language: Content-Language:X-MS-Has-Attach:X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-product:dlp-version:dlp-reaction:authentication-results: x-originating-ip:x-ms-publictraffictype:x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: x-microsoft-antispam:x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: x-ms-exchange-purlcount:x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers:x-forefront-prvs: x-forefront-antispam-report:received-spf:x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: x-microsoft-antispam-message-info:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id:X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: X-OriginatorOrg:X-NAI-Spam-Flag:X-NAI-Spam-Level: X-NAI-Spam-Threshold:X-NAI-Spam-Score:X-NAI-Spam-Version; bh=Nu1iMBldcGRIMIcahge4E6GeVD/5aKVULFQQvT do+I0=; b=EtxlU7W73oXjtBMSdnCc7QwEm8omSuSpM+moZv+9 CavE29e+oofq21Yp2shv1/oWNbISooQJkzney5C68q577/n6zN dLsKGE/4c0MEpzEpFQ+DCnMP0nslWireHUbVtBd1subgEjrRIj 3f5C49Rv/erm/cTCgELN4LEtoJk5wCE=
Received: from DNVEXAPP1N04.corpzone.internalzone.com (unknown [10.44.48.88]) by DNVWSMAILOUT1.mcafee.com with smtp (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384) id 26f2_6bbb_1c608076_4a99_4778_86fe_2fa85adfa4b9; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 02:34:14 -0600
Received: from DNVEXAPP1N05.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.48.89) by DNVEXAPP1N04.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.48.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 02:43:00 -0600
Received: from DNVO365EDGE2.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.176.74) by DNVEXAPP1N05.corpzone.internalzone.com (10.44.48.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 02:42:59 -0600
Received: from NAM04-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.44.176.241) by edge.mcafee.com (10.44.176.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 02:42:58 -0600
Received: from DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com (10.172.44.147) by DM5PR16MB1451.namprd16.prod.outlook.com (10.173.212.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1987.12; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 08:42:57 +0000
Received: from DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3d0a:95ec:9842:68f7]) by DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::3d0a:95ec:9842:68f7%9]) with mapi id 15.20.1987.012; Thu, 13 Jun 2019 08:42:56 +0000
From: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Brandon Williams <brandon.williams@akamai.com>
CC: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tram-turnbis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tram-turnbis.all@ietf.org>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-25
Thread-Index: AQHVIKHNY5K64I8fCE64oYZWgIaoB6aXzr4w
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 08:42:56 +0000
Message-ID: <DM5PR16MB170564C0438321CC3FDD0ACFEAEF0@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
References: <155971464360.28104.6837263931145163343@ietfa.amsl.com> <DM5PR16MB170560F51A9F7C281A9BC752EA170@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <F306B122-79F3-4C7A-8CE2-1C094D9F0FCC@strayalpha.com> <DM5PR16MB1705A4C370C4405AFFD63546EA100@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <5F2F8A3B-2887-4107-81E2-B4E222A4044E@strayalpha.com> <DM5PR16MB1705BD4E31370D2F5A179F17EA130@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <2C6B5776-CB95-4607-8D0C-07FDE2F6D515@strayalpha.com> <DM5PR16MB1705638AD29F3288E4AC0952EAED0@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com> <HE1PR0701MB252250AE4E7C158F985B0CC895ED0@HE1PR0701MB2522.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <D9A01E28-F9FB-4C86-AFD3-A2BA8D89C340@strayalpha.com> <a3bbeb17-e768-9ab2-9f34-3d179fa8fe38@akamai.com> <E41C125D-F3B4-475E-8AD0-124F531F1DC9@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <E41C125D-F3B4-475E-8AD0-124F531F1DC9@strayalpha.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
dlp-product: dlpe-windows
dlp-version: 11.3.0.8
dlp-reaction: no-action
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com;
x-originating-ip: [185.221.69.46]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6c9b6118-5d5b-4c28-1ea8-08d6efdb222a
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600148)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR16MB1451;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR16MB1451:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 7
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR16MB145108EDE5D8C56667960C30EAEF0@DM5PR16MB1451.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:7691;
x-forefront-prvs: 0067A8BA2A
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(346002)(366004)(396003)(136003)(376002)(76114002)(189003)(199004)(32952001)(13464003)(71200400001)(76176011)(74316002)(256004)(72206003)(6506007)(5024004)(14444005)(102836004)(305945005)(80792005)(966005)(26005)(53546011)(186003)(478600001)(7736002)(66066001)(561944003)(54906003)(71190400001)(110136005)(6116002)(33656002)(3846002)(8676002)(81166006)(99286004)(81156014)(8936002)(2906002)(19627235002)(7696005)(68736007)(229853002)(6246003)(52536014)(486006)(86362001)(316002)(66476007)(55016002)(53936002)(11346002)(53946003)(5660300002)(446003)(25786009)(30864003)(476003)(6436002)(4326008)(64756008)(6306002)(14454004)(76116006)(66946007)(73956011)(9686003)(66446008)(66556008)(85282002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR16MB1451; H:DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: McAfee.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: C7NU9lyhOfELYREICQyx8JUp7Hlfmr41RRqcNbwZlrTI2NxWhze/ls9Sh62SmJM7mJmGwGmtPSkXLeuy0iCQypnQpAaM+yC3RGwTiTgpaZkzssm09wxBM7eisw8OZJHiQF2/0JX4D0ePE1SRkFy584HV1+SrOYDPXq8v7S4ui+TAsp2Fr+n948ugZna7+GfL1NgEC+HS8StU7pup/et+Z4iTBidL4k1tS68RcIhwRyQefvmiEc6sGdMHHPSljqgwQ73KzZYmyn43PgaaTc/6/CgOBcs4q1SOEPoD8iRYwINhb4SdQV5mDs+Cl1vxOTeaY66AZx9qg5K++MMf4otH5wKWHSlhPg9HEkbAO/9BSwT6xfGudu0CtKl6LM+6b5T7Foaqlq5yCcYw1Z0DaY8rxivSPmm/e33lnuFfrTagXL0=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6c9b6118-5d5b-4c28-1ea8-08d6efdb222a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 13 Jun 2019 08:42:56.9105 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4943e38c-6dd4-428c-886d-24932bc2d5de
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR16MB1451
X-OriginatorOrg: mcafee.com
X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO
X-NAI-Spam-Level:
X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 15
X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0.1
X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6567> : inlines <7102> : streams <1824352> : uri <2855620>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/es4k5BQ1VUHFZvM-ReqWP5kT8_E>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-25
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 08:43:46 -0000
Hi Joe, Please see inline > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 3:35 AM > To: Brandon Williams <brandon.williams@akamai.com> > Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>; tsv- > art@ietf.org; Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy > <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>; draft-ietf-tram- > turnbis.all@ietf.org; tram@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-tram-turnbis- > 25 > > This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or > open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > > Hi, Brandon, > > > On Jun 11, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Brandon Williams > <brandon.williams@akamai.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Joe, > > > > First, some clarification ... You stated. > > > >> Finally, I’m quite bothered by the glib idea that transport packets > >> simply be translated into each other either between two TCP > >> connections or between TCP and UDP. The notion is simply false; TCP > >> doesn’t preserve message boundaries and TCP segments are not > >> guaranteed to match application message boundaries. > > > > There is no TCP-to-TCP relay case here. The side opposite the TURN > > client is always UDP, even if the remote client is also connected to a > > TURN server. The two TURN servers would use UDP in between, and the > > two TURN servers would not even know that the other one is there. > > > > Also, the spec does not relay "packets" between TCP and UDP. TURN does > > not rely on TCP to maintain message boundaries. Instead, a TURN TCP > > connection frames messages within the stream and that message framing > > allows the TURN server to maintain message boundaries when sending the > > messages within UDP datagrams. > > The description in the document implies packet-to-packet translation, which > seems dangerous (even as a description). This is especially true for the > notion that each UDP packet is translated into exactly one TCP frame directly. The TURN specification only discusses packet-to-packet translation for UDP-to-UDP relay and not for TCP-to-UDP relay. > > The description above in this email implies you’re just receiving “application” > messages on one transport and emitting them on another. That makes a lot > more sense, but it’s inconsistent with the description in this doc. > > > > >> Overall, the point is that simply ignoring this issue is insufficient > >> - at a minimum, this doc needs to clearly state that this issue is > >> being ignored and why, as well as addressing that issue in the > >> security sections. > > > > Acknowledging that TCP options are being ignored when messages are > > relayed could be OK. I'm not entirely certain what you're suggesting > > relative to the security considerations though. Are you just pointing > > to the fact that security built into TCP (e.g., tcp-ao, tcp-eno, > > tcp-crypt) cannot be used to provide end-to-end security? In the same > > way that (D)TLS cannot be used for this purpose either? If not that, > > what else do you have in mind? > > OK, so given you’re just terminating the connection, you need to talk about > the implications of doing so, and yes, the kinds of issues above are relevant. > If you were opening your own TCP connection, it would be relevant to > discuss how you decide what options to enable as well and whether those > options are determined based on the options of the other TCP connection > (but you’re not doing that). No, TURN server does not establish TCP connection to the peer. TURN only supports UDP between the server and the peer. Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-25#section-2.1. > > I.e., my suggestion would be to make the description of the conversion > process match this email’s explanation, i.e., as an application relay rather > than as direct packet-to-packet conversion, including: > > - adjust your description of how you relay messages to talk about things at > the “application” layer > when you talk about IPv4 or IPv6 properties, the issue is about how > you configure those as endpoints on the translator, not how *each packet* is > translated > NOTE - your document is incorrect regarding TTL; only routers drop > packets with hopcounts/TTLs of zero. A host MUST NOT (per RFC 1122/8200) You are right will remove TTL text for TCP-to-UDP relay but not for UDP-to-UDP relay. RFC1122 says, the intent is that TTL expiration will cause a datagram to be discarded by a gateway but not by the destination host; however, hosts that act as gateways by forwarding datagrams must follow the gateway rules for TTL. > > - address how your endpoint deals with TCP options that might have impact, > including TCP multiparty, AO, ENO, MD5, fastopen, and user timeout The TURN server is not acting as a TCP-to-TCP relay and I don't understand the need to discuss these options. > > > > > Regarding UDP options, I agree with Magnus that it's probably better > > to rely on tsvwg to state something about UDP option relay makes more > > sense, considering that the UDP options draft isn't published yet. > > It's unclear what could be said meaningfully in the TURN draft. If you > > have a suggestion that might help. > > The intro to Sec 2.7 could be as follows (clarifying the way in which the IP frag > avoidance is introduced as well): > > For reasons described in [Frag-Harmful], applications, especially > those sending large volumes of data, should try hard to avoid having > their packets fragmented. Applications using TCP can more or less > ignore this issue because fragmentation avoidance is now a standard > part of TCP, but applications using UDP (and thus any application > using this version of TURN) need to avoid IP fragmentation by sending > sufficiently small messages or use UDP fragmentation [draft-ietf-tsvwg- > udp-options]. > > The application running on the client and the peer can take one of > two approaches to avoid IP fragmentation until UDP fragmentation support > is available. The first > uses messages that are limited to a predetermined fixed maximum and the > second > relies on network feedback to adapt that maximum. The proposed text looks good, will update draft. Cheers, -Tiru > > > > > Thanks, > > --Brandon > > > > > > On 6/11/19 2:03 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > >> Hi, all, > >> > >> Here are my key points: > >> > >> - whether you deal with TCP options or simply ignore those on > >> incoming connections and use defaults on outgoing, the issue needs to > >> be addressed - as well as its impact on your use. > >> - UDP options are not experimental; they’re standards-track; it could > >> be mentioned here non-normatively as a possible workaround to the IP > >> fragmentation issue. > >> > >> Finally, IMO, assuming that RTP/RTCP can or should provide extended > >> functions that might already be provided by existing TCP options or > >> emerging UDP options seems like both wasted effort and a failed > >> opportunity to tune the transport as it was intended. > >> > >> Overall, the point is that simply ignoring this issue is insufficient > >> - at a minimum, this doc needs to clearly state that this issue is > >> being ignored and why, as well as addressing that issue in the security > sections. > >> > >> Finally, I’m quite bothered by the glib idea that transport packets > >> can simply be translated into each other either between two TCP > >> connections or between TCP and UDP. The notion is simply false; TCP > >> doesn’t preserve message boundaries and TCP segments are not > >> guaranteed to match application message boundaries. > >> > >> I.e., the transport implications of this “hack” are inadequately addressed. > >> > >> Joe > >> > >>> On Jun 11, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Magnus Westerlund > >>> <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > >>> <mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Joe and Tiru, > >>> > >>> May I hazard a guess why this have not arisen is that there are no > >>> transport protocol options that makes sense to use end-to-end and > >>> are not protocol specific. Thus, in UDP <-> TCP translations by TURN > >>> server there has so far not been a need to carry any of them over. > >>> Joe, can you think of any that would make sense? > >>> > >>> For UDP <-> UDP the experimental proposal for UDP options I don't > >>> see that we can require this specification to have to specify that. > >>> I do think it is an interesting question for > >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options/ if > >>> that should write more about what to do with the options when > >>> performing translation operations? > >>> > >>> When it comes to RTP and RTCP that is widely used over TURN relays > >>> when those applications need extended functionality they have gone > >>> ahead and extended RTP/RTCP rather than attempting to affect lower > >>> layers where other entities than the end-points are required to be > >>> upgraded. > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> Magnus > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2019-06-11 07:20, Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Joe, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I meant the specifications that use TURN (ICE, SIP and WebRTC) do > >>>> not discuss setting any TCP option for application data (RTP, RTCP > >>>> and WebRTC data channels). Please note TCP is only used as > >>>> fallback transport only if UDP traffic is blocked to the TURN server. > >>>> > >>>> TURN has been widely deployed in the field, and there was no > >>>> discussion in the WG to explicitly handle TCP options. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> > >>>> -Tiru > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> *From:* Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> > >>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2019 7:59 PM > >>>> *To:* Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy > >>>> <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com> > >>>> *Cc:* tsv-art@ietf.org; draft-ietf-tram-turnbis.all@ietf.org; > >>>> ietf@ietf.org; tram@ietf.org > >>>> *Subject:* Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of > >>>> draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-25 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> *CAUTION*:External email. Do not click links or open attachments > >>>> unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> ----- > >>>> > >>>> Hi, Tiru, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 9, 2019, at 11:43 PM, Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy > >>>> <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com > >>>> <mailto:TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@McAfee.com>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 7, 2019, at 4:39 AM, Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy > >>>> <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@mcafee.com > >>>> <mailto:TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@mcafee.com>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The specification has two sections 14 and 15 (IP > >>>> Header Fields for > >>>> UDP-to- > >>>> > >>>> UDP translation and IP Header Fields for TCP-to-UDP > >>>> translation) to > >>>> discuss direct translations. > >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5766 > >>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc5766&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg > &r=bwZ-nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6- > NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=wlJBA0wCj1jIz4f3RegWs8USi6_gsk3fo6Hsa > HNmDwE&s=zpNv5YDpI2-wPNhWSnCb1VsidyMEg7LYQdn6IeLqdg4&e=> > >>>> only > >>>> covered UDP-to- UDP translation in Section 12. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, but both sections ignore the impact of transport > >>>> options - both > >>>> current for TCP and pending for UDP. These are > >>>> ignored both when > >>>> packets with such transport options are received (the > >>>> input packet to > >>>> the translation) and whether / how they are used on > >>>> transmit (the > >>>> output packet) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> TURN is used to relay real-time data (e.g. audio and > >>>> video streams) > >>>> and the approach taken by VOIP related specifications is > >>>> to avoid > >>>> fragmentation for RTP packets > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sec 2.8 mentions RTP as one use case envisioned (at this > >>>> point, it’d be fair to > >>>> ask this revision to clarify whether that turned out to be > >>>> true). But it isn’t > >>>> indicated as the only use case. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The draft says TURN is invented to support multimedia sessions > >>>> signaled using SIP and is typically used with ICE. TURN is also > >>>> used with WebRTC, and WebRTC data channels also > >>>> avoid IP fragmentation > >>>> (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-13 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Drtcweb-2Ddata-2Dchannel- > 2D13&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=bwZ- > nnRGWmcGKRIuadq6- > NSnsgwbBVUJa4mZfmEIBXg&m=wlJBA0wCj1jIz4f3RegWs8USi6_gsk3fo6Hsa > HNmDwE&s=II1OEcj0VllH4yVwB5IyIB0KKiXf42ScemFtYoXUQts&e=>). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The application protocols TURN is designed for or typically used > >>>> for is not relevant to my point above, unless you’re claiming that > >>>> these uses never use transport options (which is doubtful for TCP, > >>>> for which some transport options are pervasively used by default). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regardless, though, this doesn’t impact the concern raised > >>>> above. RTP could > >>>> still employ transport options. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I checked again and don't see any RTP, Back-to-Back User Agents > >>>> (B2BUAs), SIP proxies and WebRTC gateway specifications > >>>> discussing transport options for translations. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The fact that others have this gap does not justify continuing to > >>>> fail to address it in this document. If anything, it makes it that > >>>> much more important to address. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Joe > >>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Magnus Westerlund > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> -- Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 > >>> Torshamnsgatan 23 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 > >>> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: > magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> -- _______________________________________________ > >>> Tsv-art mailing list > >>> Tsv-art@ietf.org <mailto:Tsv-art@ietf.org> > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> tram mailing list > >> tram@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram > >> > > > > -- > > Brandon Williams > > Platform Engineering > > Akamai Technologies Inc. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tsv-art mailing list > > Tsv-art@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
- [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-t… Joseph Touch via Datatracker
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Brandon Williams
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch
- Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of d… Joe Touch