Subject: [BEHAVE] updated rfc3489bis

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:23:57 -0500

Just submitted:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-behave-rfc3489bis-15.txt

Changes based on recent comments:

* MTU limit from MUST to SHOULD, with an explanation of why (namely, 
behavior discovery)

* added clarification on MD5 being the 16 byte output and not ascii 
armored, also including an example. This was some text that was in 
3489bis till -05 and got lost in the big rewrite to -06.

* clarified that the MTU limit applies to the entire datagram and not 
just the STUN message

-Jonathan R.
-- 
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
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

---

From: Philip Matthews <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:50:39 -0500

> * MTU limit from MUST to SHOULD, with an explanation of why (namely,

We also need this for TURN. Though TURN-07 says that an application  
using TURN should either do Path MTU discovery or obey these limits,  
I don't think that TURN client or server code should drop application  
data if the resulting Send or Data indication would violate these  
limits.

> 3489bis till -05 and got lost in the big rewrite to -06.

Actually, the big rewrite was -07 and thus most likely my fault. Sorry.

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:31:16 -0800

I just did a complete review of my code against rfc3489bis-15 and have
some questions:

- Section 7.1 "All STUN requests and responses sent over UDP SHOULD be
less than the path MTU":  Shouldn't indications be added to this list?

- Section 9:  Now that there will be a default port defines for STUN
over TLS, shouldn't the last sentence of the last paragraph removed?

- Section 15.8:  Shouln't the section says that the text must be a UTF-8
encoded sequence, like for USERNAME and REALM?

Thanks.

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin           [                                 ]
Home: [email-masked] [RFC1855-compliant space for rent ]
Work: [email-masked]            [                                 ]
[                                                               ]
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave