Subject: [straw] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2015 15:51:12 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-05: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a DISCUSS purely because I want to discuss it; whatever the
result is, I will be clearing the DISCUSS, and not delaying the document
on this point:  The end of Section 1 (and other places) seems to say that
this document updates 7092 by giving new mandatory behaviour for certain
types of B2BUAs.  Am I misunderstanding that, or should this document
formally "update" 7092?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Section 1 --

   For these
   and other reasons, B2BUAs were already being used by SIP domains for
   other SIP and media-related purposes began to use proprietary
   mechanisms to enable SIP devices behind NATs to communicate across
   the NAT.

I can't parse that sentence.  The "began" doesn't seem to be the right
part of speech, or maybr the second "for" is wrong.  Something, anyway.

---

From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 04:17:20 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sunday, 10 May 2015 4:21 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: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-05: (with
DISCUSS and COMMENT)

>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun/

This document does not update RFC 7092. 7092 defines different types of
B2BUAs. This document defines STUN messages handles for those types.

I will re-word this to below. Is this better?

OLD:
For these

NEW:
For these reasons, B2BUAs were being used by SIP domains for
SIP and media-related purposes. These B2BUAs use proprietary
mechanisms to enable SIP devices behind NATs to communicate across
the NAT.

Regards,
Ram

---

From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 05:30:25 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Cisco Employee <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, 11 May 2015 9:47 am
To: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>, 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: Re: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-05:
(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

>B2BUAs. This document defines STUN messages handles for those types.

Typo in the above sentence. It should be:
This document does not update RFC 7092. 7092 defines different types of
B2BUAs. This document defines how STUN messages are handled by those
B2BUAs.

Ram

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:50:38 +0100

> B2BUAs. This document defines STUN messages handles for those types.

A bit of a longer answer or a different spin would have helped, but I
just gave 7092 a closer read, and I agree with you.  The point is that
7092 doesn't *define* the B2BUAs, in the sense of a protocol
definition.  I would say that 7092 *describes* them, by saying that a
B2BUA that does [this] is called [that].  Given that, I think you're
right that there's no update here, and I'll clear my discuss
forthwith.  Thanks for the response.

> mechanisms to enable SIP devices behind NATs to communicate across

Ah, yes, I see what you're saying now.  Yes, the new sentences are
better, and thanks for that too.

Barry