Subject: [midcom] STUN issues

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 08:32:19 -0500

The STUN document
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-midcom-stun-03.txt)
has come back from IESG review with comments that need to be
addressed.  Thanks to the excellent new document tracker you
can take a look at the comments yourself - find the document
and click on the "DETAIL" button.  The comments are listed
in the "Comment log" and you can look at the individual
comments, or you can look at the ballot and discussion
summary by clicking the "Available" link in the "Detail
Info" box at the top of the page (I had to ask for help
finding that one, myself).  Note that the summary does *not*
include the most recent entry in the comment log.

Specific issues include

1) miscellaneous wordsmithing - places where the text is unclear
2) a request to restructure return codes and rethink some of
   the error handling
3) improve our use of the FLAGS attribute
4) more explicit mention of the desirability of having STUN
   servers topologically "near" the endpoint with which
   we're communicating
5) modification of use of the RESPONSE-ADDRESS to protect
   against reflector attacks
6) a suggestion from one of the security ADs to forgo the
   use of client certs, along with a proposal for stateless
   authentication
7) a suggestion that this is one case where we don't want v6 
   compatibility and that the use of AAAA records should be
   removed

Most of this can be handled through editing, but as a group
we do need to:

1) accept or reject the authentication proposal
2) fix the FLAGS attribute
3) deal with the return codes issue
4) deal with the RESPONSE-ADDRESS issue

We will be discussing this in Atlanta, but as always,
the substance of our work happens here, on the mailing list.

Thanks,

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