Re: [Tsv-art] [tram] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-25
Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Thu, 06 June 2019 13:48 UTC
Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 492DB120096; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 06:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 i-Bb5XMbngAB; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 06:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 03AF712006D; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 06:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=XgONsruAbIkrJ6OXDIb7qN1TFBNgHkuKYx70ONnAPJs=; b=r7qTEGz4KQw3Rp68Wxi5PhnRY YO/B4wk4yU4nYHNuzF2iw4qapJsuL4BQlwW4Z2q4cnxPv+h5zJBpvjOv+lyV3P/KE+CXFPmM4IHm3 0LSrMipAKnB41GV72RPWX4Uwqymz8U7zLZ3H8Cw/Yuaqvwid0+5wQIr+5a5C8YVBgVsSLz8c/LNLi N7RAB6aUZPJ3tvl/B6cWqfTLEhb2ng9E+JAefvrRIVlu9tVo031drBtTxuaP8ZjetZ41kx4WhUnnW nJKd7MUKvgKOmqETmnpwRqtkdCM/+c17WyGYpO6x9kL+ELX449kXiOP8xWJPn7ngXcgoeo3z2g+cr 5WBMqli3w==;
Received: from 50-207-123-174-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([50.207.123.174]:62696 helo=[172.20.14.223]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1hYskd-002Agx-FL; Thu, 06 Jun 2019 09:48:24 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (16F156)
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR16MB170560F51A9F7C281A9BC752EA170@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 09:48:18 -0400
Cc: "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-tram-turnbis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-tram-turnbis.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "tram@ietf.org" <tram@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F306B122-79F3-4C7A-8CE2-1C094D9F0FCC@strayalpha.com>
References: <155971464360.28104.6837263931145163343@ietfa.amsl.com> <DM5PR16MB170560F51A9F7C281A9BC752EA170@DM5PR16MB1705.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@mcafee.com>
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/mmh4RFh7O2JZqjzABHEl3-NEzZg>
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, 06 Jun 2019 13:48:29 -0000
> On Jun 6, 2019, at 9:12 AM, Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@mcafee.com> wrote: > > Hi Joseph, > > Thanks for the review, Please see inline > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: tram <tram-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Joseph Touch via >> Datatracker >> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 11:34 AM >> To: tsv-art@ietf.org >> Cc: draft-ietf-tram-turnbis.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; tram@ietf.org >> Subject: [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. >> >> Reviewer: Joseph Touch >> Review result: Ready with Issues >> >> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review >> team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were >> written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the >> document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and >> also to the IETF discussion list for information. >> >> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this >> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC tsv- >> art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. >> >> As a preface, this review is performed focusing on the changes since RFC >> 5766, as this document appears to be a fairly direct update of that content. > > Yes. > >> >> Transport issues: >> >> Although this document has substantial implications for transport protocols, >> it does not significantly alter the content of RFC5766 in this regard. However, >> there is a significant gap as follows: >> >> - The direct translation of TCP into UDP or UDP into TCP is arguably a host >> endpoint emulation function, which strongly suggests that this document >> needs to explicitly address both receiving and transmitting transport options. >> Even if all received options are ignored and no options are used on >> transmission, that should be more directly stated – as well as the impact of >> that decision, both on functionality and security. > > 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 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) > >> >> Sec 2.7 might also note that the support for UDP fragmentation and >> reassembly could be of benefit here in avoiding IP fragmentation, but that >> would be contingent on the previous note – i.e., being able to use and react >> to UDP options in the translation process. > > I don't get the comment, what specific change are you looking in the document ? The doc currently indicates that UDP relies only on IP fragmentation, but this isn’t the case with UDP options (there is a UDP-level frag and reassembly that preserves port numbers on each fragment and would thus be TURN-compatible). > >> >> Non-transport issues: >> >> Like RFC 5766, this doc continues to cite I-D.rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip as >> guidance, even using a gentle version of “must”, but this no longer seems >> appropriate because that document has expired over a decade ago. Either >> the guidance should be summarized in this document or the >> recommendation should be removed. > > Good point, Revised ICE specification (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8445) has been updated to make the procedures independent of the signaling protocol by removing the SIP and SDP procedures. > > I have updated the text as follows: > > For example, if TURN and ICE are used as part of a multimedia > solution using SIP [RFC3261], then SIP serves the role of the > rendezvous protocol, carrying the ICE candidate information inside > the body of SIP messages [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp]. If TURN and > ICE are used with some other rendezvous protocol, then ICE provides > guidance on the services the rendezvous protocol must perform. > >> >> Section 2.7 is incorrect in its claim of 576 for IPv4; it confuses the receiver >> reassembly minimum (EMTU_R, 576) for the link MTU (EMTU_S, 68). See >> draft-ietf-tunnels for details. If 576 is the focus, at best it could be claimed >> that 576 is the “de-facto” EMTU_S for IPv4. Other nits: > > Section 2.7 says IPv4 host must be capable of receiving a packet whose length is equal to 576 bytes (EMTU_R, 576). > Why do you say the text is incorrect ? 576 is the reassembly MTU, but is also referred as the PMTU. The PMTU is EMTU_S and is strictly only 68. >> >> Sec 23 indicates the changes since RFC5766; a similar section addressing >> changes since RFC6156 would be useful to add. > > Okay, added another Section (updates to RFC6156). > > Cheers, > -Tiru > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> tram mailing list >> tram@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram > _______________________________________________ > 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