Subject: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:29:25 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Multiplexing Scheme Updates for Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Extension for Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
        Authors         : Marc Petit-Huguenin
                          Gonzalo Salgueiro
	Filename        : draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01.txt
	Pages           : 12
	Date            : 2015-03-24

Abstract:
   This document defines how Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS),
   Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), Real-time Transport Control
   Protocol (RTCP), Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN),
   Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN), and Stream Control
   Transmission Protocol (SCTP) over UDP packets are multiplexed on a
   single receiving socket.  It overrides the guidance from SRTP
   Extension for DTLS [RFC5764], which suffered from three issues
   described and fixed in this document.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:49:16 -0500

Marc,

I really wonder if the SCTP over UDP allocation should be in this draft.
I definitely don't think the motivation that is present in Section 1.2
is reason for this document to perform an allocation.

I think that allocation should happen at the time when there actually
are consensus on using SCTP over UDP in a setting which requires
demultiplexing with STUN etc. Currently we appear to be missing quite a
bit of glue between SCTP over UDP (RFC6951) and using ICE to establish
that UDP flow for it.

And based on the discussion in the WG today, I think there is no
consensus for this part, thus I would like you to remove it until a
consensus for including this in this document exists.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund
(as WG chair)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Services, Media and Network features, Ericsson Research EAB/TXM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                 | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:58:36 -0500

> consensus for including this in this document exists.

I believe Marc did this on purpose to focus the discussion on this
single stupid thing and ensure the core matter gets accepted smoothly.
So far he's winning.

Simon

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 17:42:59 -0500

> bit of glue between SCTP over UDP (RFC6951) and using ICE to establish

Please note that STUN over SCTP over UDP has nothing to do with ICE, but with using ORIGIN with TURN allocation.

> consensus for including this in this document exists.

OK.

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [email-masked]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 18:12:06 -0500

On 2015-03-24 17:42, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>> I really wonder if the SCTP over UDP allocation should be in this
>> draft. I definitely don't think the motivation that is present in
>> Section 1.2 is reason for this document to perform an
>> allocation.
> 
>> I think that allocation should happen at the time when there
>> actually are consensus on using SCTP over UDP in a setting which
>> requires demultiplexing with STUN etc. Currently we appear to be
>> missing quite a bit of glue between SCTP over UDP (RFC6951) and
>> using ICE to establish that UDP flow for it.
> 
> 
> Please note that STUN over SCTP over UDP has nothing to do with
> ICE, but with using ORIGIN with TURN allocation.
> 

Okay, but the general issue why we have to do de-multiplexing is ICE.
If you only run TURN on a port, you would never need to demultiplex.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:14:10 +0000

The -02 was just submitted with the SCTP stuff removed.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

> On Mar 24, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Marc,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt