Subject: [tram] Comments on draft-ietf-tram-turnbis-01

From: Justin Uberti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 01:01:30 -0500

better late than never:

S 6.1:
I don't think that we need to forbid using RAF with AAF. It should be
possible to do RAF(v4) with AAF(v6), RAF(v6) with AAF(v4), or AAF(v6) by
itself, all with the same meaning.

S 7.1:
I think the client should include RAF for the bindings that it wants to
keep, not AAF. AAF is only useful in the ALLOCATE, where the client doesn't
know if the server supports AAF.

S 9.1:
I don't think we want to support CreatePermissions with multiple addresses.
It doesn't save anything other than 2 packets and just makes life more
complicated.

S 11.1:
How would you do a ChannelBind with multiple addresses? Sent packets go to
both destinations? Again, this seems complex with no good reason.

S 15.6/15.11:
It would be good to separate the RAF/AAF payload definition out so that it
doesn't need to be repeated in both sections.

S 15.12:
The error code field is too small to hold error codes (8 bits). I think
this should use the same structure as ERROR-CODE from 5389, but use some of
the reserved bits for family.