Subject: [Ietf-behave] TURN Issue #8: Send Reliable or not?

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:51:05 -0800 (PST)

Right now, the Send request is a reliable transaction. This is actually 
somewhat odd; the corresponding request from server to client, Data 
Indication, is not reliable. There is actually no reason why Send has to 
be reliable. I've gotten a proposal from an implementor to change Send 
to an unreliabel indication. The claim, which I can believe, is that it 
much simplified things. Any protocol riding about TURN that sends data 
(like STUn connectivity checks) has its own reliability mechanism 
anyway, making the mechanism redundant.

In and of itself, I think this is a good idea, but it would break 
backwards compatibility with any existing implementations. As such, I'd 
like some input prior to making any kind of change.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
--
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
jdrosen@xxxxxxxxx                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

---

From: "Derek MacDonald" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:23:04 -0800 (PST)

I agree with the Send request not being reliable.  I gather it would then
act like a Data Indication where no response is sent?

--Derek

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-behave-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-behave-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rosenberg
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 12:51 PM
> To: Behave
> Subject: [Ietf-behave] TURN Issue #8: Send Reliable or not?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-behave mailing list
> Ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-behave

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:24:58 -0800 (PST)

Yes.

-Jonathan R.

Derek MacDonald wrote:

---

From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:28:01 -0800 (PST)

> like some input prior to making any kind of change.

We also had a lot of problems with this and we chose to do not
retransmit the SendRequest on the client side if no response is
received. The solution of not having any response is even better.

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Home: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Professional: petithug@xxxxxxx
Work: marc@xxxxxxx

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:30:15 -0800 (PST)

OK, looks like there is consensus to make SEND unreliable.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:

Thanks,
Jonathan R.