Subject: [BEHAVE] TURN Issue: Codepoints for errors

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:30:18 -0500

TURN-06 proposes three new error codes:

    (tbd)  (Channel Number Missing or Invalid): The request requires a
       channel number, but the CHANNEL-NUMBER attribute is missing, or
       the specified channel number is invalid in some way.

    (tbd)  (Peer Address Missing or Invalid): The request requires a  
peer
       transport address, but the PEER-ADDRESS attribute is missing, or
       the specified peer transport address is invalid in some way.

    (tbd)  (Lifetime Malformed or Invalid): The LIFETIME attribute is
       malformed or the specified lifetime is invalid in some way.

Rohan has proposed that these three codepoints be eliminated, and we  
just use 400 Bad Request. Does anyone care about this?

Note that an implementation is always free to change the text  
associated with a codepoint, so it could say something like 400  
"Channel Number Missing or Invalid".  This is not something that we  
have specified before with STUN, but it is something allowed by the  
spec.

- Philip

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

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:26:11 -0500

I agree completely with Rohan.

I've been through this a gazillion times with protocol design.

There is absolutely, positively, NO VALUE in defining codepoints which 
basically say, "the spec said you were supposed to include this header 
formatted this way, but you didn't". These errors ONLY occur as a 
consequence of implementation error, and they are utterly unrecoverable. 
  Thus, rather than adding a slew of error codes for addressing each and 
every syntax error that can happen (and this IS a syntax error), we 
should just use one code - 400.

-Jonathan R.

Philip Matthews wrote:
>    (tbd)  (Peer Address Missing or Invalid): The request requires a peer
> Note that an implementation is always free to change the text associated 
> with a codepoint, so it could say something like 400 "Channel Number 
> Missing or Invalid".  This is not something that we have specified 
> before with STUN, but it is something allowed by the spec.
> 
> - Philip
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   499 Thornall St.
Cisco Fellow                                   Edison, NJ 08837
Cisco, Voice Technology Group
[email-masked]
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (408) 902-3084
http://www.cisco.com

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:16:50 -0500

>       malformed or the specified lifetime is invalid in some way.

Is there anyone who feels there should be explicit error codes for  
these errors?
If not, the next version of TURN will just use 400 Bad Request for  
these errors.

- Philip

---

From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:32:24 +0200

> If not, the next version of TURN will just use 400 Bad Request for

I agree it should be all 400. I already made that point a long time ago, I 
think.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont