Subject: [BEHAVE] Comments on draft-ietf-behave-turn-ipv6-04

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:11:31 -0400

Hello,

I had a first reading of draft-ietf-behave-turn-ipv6-04. Here are a few 
comments.

1. Last paragraph of section 4.1:

   The REQUEST-ADDRESS-TYPE attribute MAY only be present in Allocate
   Requests.

This is in contradiction with section 4.2 which describes the usage of 
REQUESTED-ADDRESS-TYPE in the Refresh request.

Also, s/REQUEST/REQUESTED/.

2. In section 4.2, there is confusing talk about bindings. Please 
s/binding/allocation/ because you do not want to confuse the reader with STUN 
bindings when you're really talking about TURN allocations.

3. In section 4.2:

   If the Allocate Response contains the same transport address as
   previously obtained, the binding has been refreshed.

There's an "else" missing. I suggest that server refresh the allocation if the 
REQUESTED-ADDRESS-TYPE attribute is missing or of the same type as previously 
allocated. If it is present but of the wrong family, reply with a 400 Bad 
Request.

4. The last paragraph of section 5.1:

   If the REQUESTED-ADDRESS-TYPE attribute is absent, the server MUST
   allocate a IPv4 transport address to the TURN client.

This is incompatible with the current TURN draft, which says that the relayed 
address must be of the same family as the mapped address, which may be IPv6.

Otherwise, this draft is very straightforward and easy to understand.

Thanks,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave