Subject: [BEHAVE] Rough minutes from TURN ad-hoc

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 11:35:38 -0800

Dan asked me to send my rough minutes from the TURN ad-hoc to the  
mailing list. They are very rough, but they might prove useful. Note  
that the conversation wandered around a number of topics, and I  
mostly only recorded decisions.

- Philip

Rough minutes from TURN ad-hoc
Thursday evening, 6 Nov 2007

Decision: We are keeping the bandwidth parameter (because people are  
interested in it).
Semantics: if no parameter in request, server may include one in  
response in which case the server may drop traffic in excess of that  
parameter; if server does not include, then server is saying that it  
will attempt to handle all traffic.

Stateful alloc
Decision: server must reply with same answer within 10 seconds. This  
is ok.

Open issue #3
Address vs Address and Port Restriction
Cullen argues that this means that there is no incentive for a  
service provider to install TURN.
EKR argues that this turns a symmetric firewall into an address- 
restricted firewall, and most firewalls are port-restricted firewalls.
Action: Rohan will write up a brief description of the problem and  
send it to Magnus.

Open issue #4
Port adjacency
Decision: Hold adjacent port reserved for the lifetime of the allocation

Decision:  We are going with EKR's proposed ChannelBind stuff.

Decision: Length field is actual length, not zero. If mismatch  
between TURN length and UDP length, then drop packet.

[Need to talk about partial write of a UDP datagram to the TCP socket  
when the server-to-client connection runs over TCP.]

[Need to go through document and handle case where two clients (both  
behind  symmetric NATs, connect to the same TURN server]

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave