Subject: Re: [straw] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 09:11:53 +0000

Hi Kathleen, Sam,

I am responding to SecDir comments in this thread itself.

1)For the first comment on refining the abstract here the proposed text

OLD:
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUAs)
are often designed to be on the media path, rather than just
intercepting signaling.  This means that B2BUAs often act on the
media path leading to separate media legs that the B2BUA correlates
and bridges together.  When acting on the media path, B2BUAs are
likely to receive Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) packets
as part of Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) processing.

This document defines behavior for a B2BUA performing ICE processing.
The goal of this draft is to ensure that B2BUAs properly handle STUN
messages received as part of the ICE procedures used for NAT and
Firewall traversal of multimedia sessions.

NEW:
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Back-to-Back User Agents (B2BUAs)
are often designed to be on the media path, rather than just
intercepting signaling.  This means that B2BUAs often act on the
media path leading to separate media legs that the B2BUA correlates
and bridges together.  When acting on the media path, B2BUAs are
likely to receive Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) packets
as part of Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) processing.

This document defines behavior for a B2BUA performing ICE processing.
The goal of this draft is to ensure that B2BUAs properly handles SIP
Messages that carry ICE semantics in Session Description Protocol(SDP)
and STUN messages received as part of the ICE procedures for NAT
and Firewall traversal of multimedia sessions.

2)For the second comment on having some text in introduction that talks
about the goals of this draft, here is a new paragraph we will add (after
4th para).

NEW:

This document describes proper behavior of B2BUAs performing ICE
processing. This includes defining consistent handling of SIP messages
carrying ICE semantics in SDP and STUN messages received as part of the
ICE procedures performed on the media path for NAT and Firewall
traversal of multimedia sessions.

Please let me know if these changes are ok. I will send the diffs to the
WG once you agree on these changes.

Regards,
Ram

-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 2:37 am
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>, Victor Pascual <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on
draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-05: (with COMMENT)

>Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
>draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-05: No Objection
>
>When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun/
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>COMMENT:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I just finished reading this draft and agree with the SecDir review
>assessment that this draft does not add additional security
>considerations.  The SecDir reviewer had some good points on the abstract
>and introduction that I do think would be helpful to improve the
>readability of the draft and would like you to consider these updates.
>
>https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05687.html
>
>