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

From: Steve Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 21:42:12 -0000

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]]
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

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                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

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

---

From: "Bob Penfield" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:23:34 -0500

Hi Steve,

You call your proposal mature, however I have not yet seen a detailed
specification of the protocol. Or am I missing something? I can make an
implementation based on the STUN/TURN proposals (after a few corrections
that I will post separately). Can you provide the details we need to create
implementations?

This is an urgent need which the community/industry would like make
deployable solutions within the immediate future. We cannot afford to go
through the normal 18+ month protocol development cycle. We need to submit
an implementable specification to the IESG in the next month or so.

I am also very interested in knowing what flaws you see in the proposal.
Maybe you could enumerate the most serious.

cheers,
(-:bob

Robert F. Penfield
Chief Software Architect
Acme Packet, Inc.
130 New Boston Street
Woburn, MA 01801
[email-masked]