Subject: [BEHAVE] TURN-14 published

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:27:57 -0400

I have just submitted version -14 of TURN (draft-ietf-behave-turn).  
This version attempts to address all but one of the COMMENTs and  
DISCUSSes raised during the IESG evaluation of TURN. The only one not  
addressed is the DISCUSS suggesting that security be mandatory for  
servers -- this topic is currently being discussed on a separate  
thread on the mailing list.

I would like to call the WG's attention to the following two technical  
changes made in this version:

    o  Reworded the text in Section 6.2 and Section 7.2 to more clearly
       describe how the allocation lifetime is computed in the case  
where
       a client requests a lifetime that is greater than both the  
default
       lifetime and the server's maximum allowed lifetime.

    o  In Section 6.2, swapped the steps that check the RESERVATION- 
TOKEN
       and EVEN-PORT attributes to correctly handle the case where an
       Allocate request contains both attributes.  The new text  
correctly
       returns 400 Bad Request in this case.

These two changes were made to fix two bugs in the spec found by  
Robert Sparks. Please review to make sure no new bugs were introduced.

I would also like to call the WG's attention to a significant rewrite  
in the Overview section:

    o  The former "Other Features" section of the Overview has been
       replaced with a series of sections describing various secondary
       features of TURN, and the text describing and motivating these
       secondary features has been expanded.  As a part of this rewrite,
       there is now a section that describes how to avoid IP
       fragmentation when using TURN.

The main goal of this rewrite was to address a comment by Lars Eggert  
about avoiding IP fragmentation, but I ended up making some changes to  
the surrounding text to motive other minor features.

Other changes introduced in this version:

    o  In Section 8, changed the term "default permission lifetime" to
       "Permission Lifetime" to make it clearer that the lifetime of a
       permission is not configurable.

    o  Added text in the Overview section to describe why various timer
       values were chosen.

    o  Added a sentence to the IAB consideration section saying that the
       disappearance of NATs in the near-term seems unlikely.

    o  The former "Other Features" section of the Overview has been
       replaced with a series of sections describing various secondary
       features of TURN, and the text describing and motivating these
       secondary features has been expanded.  As a part of this rewrite,
       there is now a section that describes how to avoid IP
       fragmentation when using TURN.

    o  Added some additional text in the Overview to explain how a  
client
       would select between UDP, TCP, and TLS transport.

    o  Fixed various minor typos.

Comments on this new version are welcome.

- Philip

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:48:23 -0400

It was just brought to my attention that the following URL provides a  
convenient way of seeing the diffs between TURN-14 and the previous  
version:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-behave-turn-14

- Philip

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:50:24 -0500

I've cleared. I added a note with my remaining worry (copied below),  
but I don't insist the document address it.
----
(Comment to version -14): I think it's likely that a client  
implementer will miss noticing that the client needs to set a separate  
timer for refreshing the permission and the channelbind when a  
channelbind request succeeds. You could help avoid some interop  
problems by explicitly calling this out in the "processing channelbind  
responses" section.
----
RjS

On Apr 12, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Philip Matthews wrote:

> DISCUSSes raised during the IESG evaluation of TURN. The only one  
> not addressed is the DISCUSS suggesting that security be mandatory  
> for servers -- this topic is currently being discussed on a separate  
> I would like to call the WG's attention to the following two  
> technical changes made in this version:
>
> I would also like to call the WG's attention to a significant  
> rewrite in the Overview section:
>
> The main goal of this rewrite was to address a comment by Lars  
> Eggert about avoiding IP fragmentation, but I ended up making some  
> changes to the surrounding text to motive other minor features.
>