Subject: [BEHAVE] Re: [Ietf-behave] review of rfc3489bis-04

From: "Pete Cordell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:51:18 -0000

If you're going to the trouble of changing the message ids, would it be
sensible to change the attribute ids at the same time so that you can
readily tell what is a TURN attribute and what is a base STUN attribute?
i.e. starting the TURN attribute numbering at 0x0100.  e.g., something like:

   0x010D: LIFETIME
   0x0110: BANDWIDTH
   0x0112: REMOTE-ADDRESS
   0x0113: DATA
   0x0116: RELAY-ADDRESS
   0x0118: REQUESTED-PORT-PROPS
   0x0119: REQUESTED-TRANSPORT
   0x0122: REQUESTED-IP
   0x0121: TIMER-VAL

Pete.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Rosenberg" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bruce Lowekamp" <[email-masked]>
>> - It would be much easier to implement a stack-level for STUN if
>>  specific bits indicated whether a message is a request, response,
>>  error response, or indication.  In several spots the draft refers to
>>  response and error response types as 0x100 and 0x110 higher, which I
>>  assume is intended to indicate bits to be set, but I don't think it
>>  technically reads that way.  However, no way of determining whether
>>  a type is an indication is mentioned in the draft.  Providing for
>>  future message types to be identified without recompiling the code
>>  with a new list of types for a new usage would be very helpful.
>
> I think this is a good idea, almost a necessity based on the layering
> that is now introduced. You are correct that currently nothing indicates
> that a message is an indication, and it should. Unfortunately the
> currently allocated values for the TURN indications (which is the only
> place they are being used) doesn't allow an easy way to identify them.
>
> However I think we are better off changing the turn message values to
> fix this.
>
> I have now made this explicit by using two bits from the message type
> header field to indicate the "class" of the message (request, success
> response, error response, indication), and the remaining 12 bits are the
> method. This formalizes the message type structure which has been there
> till now. Unfortunately this will require a change in the message type
> values for the indications in TURN, but I think its worth it.
>
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML to C++ data binding visit
http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx
(or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
=============================================

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