Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Comments on turn-ipv6

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 14:12:46 +0300

Hi,

> I would like to suggest that this spec could be merged into the
> main TURN spec (turn-03). Is there any reason why we need to publish
> this as a separate document?

I will leave this decision to the chairs. I am fine either way.

> Section 4.1 Allocating a Binding
> 
> The length is specified to be 8 bytes. I think this should be 4 bytes,
> as a STUN attribute specifies the number of bytes in the attribute
> *payload* excluding the 4 bytes in the STUN attribute.

True. We will fix this in the next revision of the document.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

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

---

From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 13:28:52 +0300

Hello,

> I will leave this decision to the chairs. I am fine either way.

In light of the ICE, ANAT, and addrsel (RFC3484) debate, I daresay that the 
idea of a "REQUEST-ADDRESS-TYPE" might be too simplistic or suboptimal.

I would feel that for RFC3484 to operate best, and in particular, to cover the 
case where it is not known whether the other end has v4, v6 or both, it might 
make much more sense for the TURN relay to offer a list of possible 
addresses. In fact, from RFC3484/addrsel perspective, it should include at 
least one address for each of the label that are defined (so long as it has 
one of course). Note that it might have to put *several* IPv6 addresses 
there, so REQUEST-ADDRESS-TYPE is insufficient.

What about not changing anything the Allocate Request, and a new optional 
attribute in the Allocate Response listing the IPv6 addresses offered by the 
relay?

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont