Subject: RE: [midcom] new I-D on "symmetric STUN"

From: John LaCour <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:57:41 -0800

Steve,
 
You may or may not be correct, but this message does next to nothing
to help any of us evaluate the merits of either proposal.
 
Just because something was created earlier or even implemented doesn't
make it inherently better.
 
Rather than try to strong-arm us, you really need to enumerate the many
flaws and how your proposal addresses them.  If you want to be
completely forthcoming coming you should also discuss the weaknesses
of your own proposal and why you've made those trade-offs.
 
In fairness to you and Jonathan, I haven't done a thorough review of
either proposal yet.  This message should not be misconstrued
as  supporting either proposal.  Rather I'm trying to encourage
you to tell us something useful.
 
-John

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Davies [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 1:42 PM
To: 'Jonathan Rosenberg'; [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [midcom] new I-D on "symmetric STUN"

Interesting TURN of events or should I say 'U TURN'. 

Puns aside, this proposal says nothing that hasn't already been proposed.
While I am pleased to see TURN uses IDENTICAL concepts to the Davies
proposal, it contains many flaws (too numerous to go into here). Fix those
flaws and you end up with the Davies proposal. Not only does TURN come a
month after the deadline set in Melinda's rules of engagement, but the
development of such a new and immature proposal is by definition not in the
best interests of a pre-midcom solution. If we agree on the concepts and
Jonathan et al are interested in a quick solution, then surely it makes
sense to jointly work on the most mature incarnation of those concepts. Why
re-invent the wheel?

Steve 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Jonathan Rosenberg [ mailto:[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> ] 
Sent: 14 November 2001 20:34 
To: [email-masked]' 
Subject: [midcom] new I-D on "symmetric STUN" 

Folks, 

I've talked in the past about the fact that STUN used to have a bit about 
handling the symmetric case, but that we yanked it out since its 
sufficiently orthonogonal (and a fairly crowded space). I've just submitted 
an I-D that documents that piece of the solution. Its a very simple 
mechanism, more or less the same as STUN, which uses a relay server. The 
protocol is called "Traversal Using Relay NAT" or TURN. Until it appears in 
the archives, you can pick up a copy at: 

http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-rosenberg-midcom-turn-00.txt
<http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-rosenberg-midcom-turn-00.txt>  

Thanks, 
Jonathan R. 

--- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave. 
Chief Scientist                             First Floor 
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936 
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050 
http://www.jdrosen.net <http://www.jdrosen.net>                       PHONE:
(973) 952-5000 
http://www.dynamicsoft.com <http://www.dynamicsoft.com>  

_______________________________________________ 
midcom mailing list 
[email-masked] 
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom
<http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:43:23 -0500

>of your own proposal and why you've made those trade-offs.

During the pre-midcom discussion at the Salt Lake City meeting
the authors of each candidate draft will be doing precisely that.
Well, not *precisely* - what I've asked for is one slide listing
the benefits of their proposal and one slide listing the open issues.  
It might be helpful if they posted that material to the mailing list 
when it's ready.

Melinda