Subject: [tram] Call for adoption: draft-johnston-tram-turnbis-01

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:33:36 -0400

TRAMsters,

This email initiates a two-week adoption call for
draft-johnston-tram-turnbis-01, which targets the TURN-bis milestone
we have for January 2015.

Two questions for discussion:

- What do we want to achieve with TURN-bis? That is, beyond the errata
and tracker issues, when will we consider the draft to be "done" and
ready to be sent to IESG?

- Given what we want to achieve, is this draft a good start? "Good"
meaning it is going in the right direction, not that it is close to
the end goal.

Thanks,
Simon & Gonzalo

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:43:52 -0400

With WG chair hat off, I will provide my own personal views...

> ready to be sent to IESG?

I think we need to merge TURN-IPv6 into the base spec. IPv4-only
protocols are a thing of the past.

I don't think we need to merge TURN-TCP. The base spec could remain
compatible with the TURN-TCP RFC so that we don't need to update it
too.

I think that it would make sense to merge the SSODA draft into the base spec.

> meaning it is going in the right direction, not that it is close to

Since the draft is so close to the starting line, it's hard to go in
the wrong direction...

Simon

---

From: Oleg Moskalenko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 09:25:34 -0700

> I think that it would make sense to merge the SSODA draft into the base

I agree, and I'd merge the ORIGIN draft, too. That is a very important
change for a large enterprise.

> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>

---

From: Alan Johnston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 11:42:32 -0500

Hi Oleg,

The ORIGIN attribute applies to both STUN and TURN, so if it were to be
merged, it would be into STUN-bis.  I'm not so sure about merging as the
ORIGIN draft is almost ready for last call.  The ORIGIN RFC could be
normatively referenced by both STUN-bis and TURN-bis when they are
published next year, if needed.

- Alan -

---

From: Justin Uberti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 13:53:22 -0700

I agree that simply referencing ORIGIN makes more sense. Also agree that we
should try to incorporate SSODA.

---

From: "Pal Martinsen (palmarti)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:42:07 +0000

+1 to referencing ORIGIN.

+1 to incorporating SSODA into TURNbis

SSODA now have two implementations (Both OpenSource). Coturn (https://code.google.com/p/coturn/) and NATtools (https://github.com/cisco/NATTools)

I think the SSODA draft is ready to be merged into TURNbis and continue the discussion there. There probably still issues to be discussed, but better to have them in a WG document than an I-D? Or?

.-.
Pål-Erik

On 12 Aug 2014, at 22:53, Justin Uberti <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

I agree that simply referencing ORIGIN makes more sense. Also agree that we should try to incorporate SSODA.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Alan Johnston <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi Oleg,

The ORIGIN attribute applies to both STUN and TURN, so if it were to be merged, it would be into STUN-bis.  I'm not so sure about merging as the ORIGIN draft is almost ready for last call.  The ORIGIN RFC could be normatively referenced by both STUN-bis and TURN-bis when they are published next year, if needed.

- Alan -

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Oleg Moskalenko <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Simon Perreault <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
With WG chair hat off, I will provide my own personal views...

I agree, and I'd merge the ORIGIN draft, too. That is a very important change for a large enterprise.

Simon

_______________________________________________
tram mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram

_______________________________________________
tram mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram

_______________________________________________
tram mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram

_______________________________________________
tram mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:28:19 -0400

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:42 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti)
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> SSODA now have two implementations (Both OpenSource). Coturn
> (https://code.google.com/p/coturn/) and NATtools
> (https://github.com/cisco/NATTools)

Cool! Please add this in an Implementation Status [RFC6982] section!

Discussion about SSODA issues can continue. Whether SSODA is merged or
not is irrelevant.

Simon

---

From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:59:11 +0000

+1 to adoption of draft-johnston-tram-turnbis-01 as WG doc

[so that's a +3 by my count]

-G

On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:42 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On 12 Aug 2014, at 22:53, Justin Uberti <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Alan Johnston <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Hi Oleg,
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Oleg Moskalenko <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Simon Perreault <[email-masked]> wrote:

---

From: "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 04:24:42 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tram [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Gonzalo Salgueiro
> (gsalguei)
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 8:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [tram] Call for adoption: draft-johnston-tram-turnbis-01
> 

+1 to all above.

-Tiru

> > I think the SSODA draft is ready to be merged into TURNbis and continue
> the discussion there. There probably still issues to be discussed, but better to
> have them in a WG document than an I-D? Or?
> >
> > .-.
> > Pål-Erik
> >
> >
> >> > - What do we want to achieve with TURN-bis? That is, beyond the
> >> > errata and tracker issues, when will we consider the draft to be
> >> > "done" and ready to be sent to IESG?
> >>

---

From: Brandon Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 11:01:47 -0400

+1 to WG

I think that both TURNbis and STUNbis should cover things that the WG 
considers to be problems with the core protocols that apply broadly to 
virtually any STUN/TURN deployment. For that reason ...

+1 to incorporating SSODA (I think IPv4/6 dual stack support should be 
considered a core TURN requirement)

I'm uncertain what I think about the ORIGIN draft here. It mostly 
applies to 3rd party TURN service deployments I think, so I agree with 
not folding it into TURNbis. I'm just not sure whether an extension for 
improved 3rd party support even needs to be referenced. Are we intending 
to reference all such 3rd party support extensions?

To be clear, I don't object to it being referenced. I'm just not sure it 
needs to be in order for TURNbis to be complete.

--Brandon

-- 
Brandon Williams; Senior Principal Software Engineer
Emerging Products Engineering; Akamai Technologies Inc.