From nobody Fri Jan 16 03:58:26 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A09261ACDC7 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 03:58:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J6719o8iEvyk for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 03:58:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x233.google.com (mail-lb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 404561ACDC6 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 03:58:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id z11so18067150lbi.10 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 03:58:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=C1JgBuXCSrqCW/7q1pjyg7W54/oTnOiULMxkE6OUE78=; b=CsWmiOpTg6lje/NAQnr//CtW/IKvTq5p2PabqxC8++lJ1mQhKzhYDWK/FVVBzLHRTj /xN67lCHKObdK1SHDIPkpqW/vlDOBXeb6IXozprGhm1oAoqJAkTtDEYk5azSkI74nxKf c5y+0gy79pV5NRA5OehJOKnK1eYbkrDPHaBzDzSdQUBs35B3bOaFdTMfiOyXrkZskft/ wYcrhzFCYx5K6wbkHb+sNNJk34fXLV6O/zgacsZRA7q2/QWIEk2LPrKwsW+3lEBZcpUk ubek41KY2gbKWxmzxcam8gdEbwVNhuYs8CdvJh9Gm/8XCxDKKqSlIkPF+cMt2LeUZ5tS gxbA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.1.2 with SMTP id 2mr8649793lai.89.1421409501741; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 03:58:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.205.201 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 03:58:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:58:21 +0100 Message-ID: From: Victor Pascual Avila To: "straw@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: [straw] WGLC for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:58:24 -0000 (As co-chair) Hi, We could like to initiate WGLC for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 Please provide any comments by Friday 6 Feb. Even if You read the document, and don=E2=80=99t have any comments, it=E2=80=99s good to indicat= e that. Regards, Christer & Victor From nobody Fri Jan 16 04:30:06 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C6B1ACD36 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:30:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.979 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BQ3ldx6YCfBU for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:30:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-f45.google.com (mail-qg0-f45.google.com [209.85.192.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D1071AC3E4 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:30:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id z107so15928612qgd.4 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:30:00 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yxiruwkTTwRIdiUunUJlgMnf0luVkSyQ/jsfXiRKlMU=; b=ezdLU1MVR0o7HyoXMEoW4cauIk5pS7nKxcY/tf4vXeLTUcz88zBqT4do9mKy9x9YqX ziAr2wQluK0N/ezdWj795GqV4mkNlxPbO18YLbh/u0fmLkhCjLqEj10qfEPRzcpkDziu 4FK6LGvRkASFKCp+NafeuXl7QY+4VmNuHXef4lPQ7VLu0ipdoKdqtaP8LUf2zjbdSx4f knzD/nb9qGP+Fi+jb3B4jvlqldcL9QnF0/CSbD8f6Ylo+3FXs/LTBZeONSIDIuSmqO3z IXI+mnyeO5xM2mtpr0lzPv6rVwzxSKtd0bqS0bY1Yvr1/f9e6jPamPsZFuY4ho+UGJTi 2b1w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmn5TUjO9eaQ9fh0Zi0ESto4TqqFS/1sMVhv4jlUjZ8vWR62jeZXvpcqnVR7BXbHaVREa2O X-Received: by 10.229.130.65 with SMTP id r1mr24683521qcs.16.1421411400825; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 04:30:00 -0800 (PST) From: Brett Tate References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIT1BdfRXiYj0kXN3F6f3neP7ZwuJw7Zzbg Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 07:29:58 -0500 Message-ID: <2a30b9caa818bc84592087436b2c7b38@mail.gmail.com> To: draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun@tools.ietf.org, straw@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:30:04 -0000 Hi, Section 4 needs to be finished. It currently indicates TBD. Thanks, Brett > -----Original Message----- > From: straw [mailto:straw-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Victor Pascual > Avila > Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 6:58 AM > To: straw@ietf.org > Subject: [straw] WGLC for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 > > (As co-chair) > > Hi, > > We could like to initiate WGLC for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 > > Please provide any comments by Friday 6 Feb. Even if You read the > document, > and don=E2=80=99t have any comments, it=E2=80=99s good to indicate that. > > Regards, > Christer & Victor > > _______________________________________________ > straw mailing list > straw@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw From nobody Fri Jan 16 08:47:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D8DC1ACF1A for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:47:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Z3KG5RgaA_V for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:47:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DED5A1ACED8 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:47:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1321; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1421426835; x=1422636435; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Sj2vyNIp++mTw90wzquE2f92wa4TD/fyGm7m/gVjmPw=; b=iPBqxTygLOF1avAAdT/1H5hlGdt+AbIjrruq/8SgMMN6OcgYmi11K7QS 9iBgfts6YuLXjThopU4V5MeGEizVj7Ix5wowdbUlPDu3IcTcai8KgSIcG WMLcIiAY1RHLI/pf2M6cZ59w4VKYsCQsaiREstyOsdhG2AC6WUVB+oUhO M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiEFAJ8/uVStJV2b/2dsb2JhbABagwZSWATGHAqFcQKBE0MBAQEBAX2EDAEBAQQBAQFrFwQCAQgRAwEBASgHJwsUCQgCBAESiCwN0m8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQETBJAABoQjBYlDhQmJD4EPgnOCPYtLIoNub4FFfgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,411,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="387609023" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2015 16:47:14 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0GGlDdN014777 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:47:13 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.51]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:47:13 -0600 From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" To: Brett Tate , "draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun@tools.ietf.org" , "straw@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [straw] WGLC for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 Thread-Index: AQHQMawT4gL+ssD8KEqqgSyGNHRsVw== Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:47:12 +0000 Message-ID: References: <2a30b9caa818bc84592087436b2c7b38@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2a30b9caa818bc84592087436b2c7b38@mail.gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117 x-originating-ip: [10.65.45.192] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:47:20 -0000 Brett, I will add the section 4 and publish a new revision very shortly. Thanks, Ram -----Original Message----- From: Brett Tate Date: Friday, 16 January 2015 5:59 pm To: "draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun@tools.ietf.org" , "straw@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [straw] WGLC for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 >Hi, > >Section 4 needs to be finished. It currently indicates TBD. > >Thanks, >Brett > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: straw [mailto:straw-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Victor Pascual >> Avila >> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 6:58 AM >> To: straw@ietf.org >> Subject: [straw] WGLC for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 >> >> (As co-chair) >> >> Hi, >> >> We could like to initiate WGLC for draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 >> >> Please provide any comments by Friday 6 Feb. Even if You read the >> document, >> and don=B9t have any comments, it=B9s good to indicate that. >> >> Regards, >> Christer & Victor >> >> _______________________________________________ >> straw mailing list >> straw@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw > >_______________________________________________ >straw mailing list >straw@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw From nobody Mon Jan 19 00:23:50 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3CEB1A854D for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:23:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9rhKT0H_TriV for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:23:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 874A81AD248 for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 00:23:46 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79fc6d000001087-42-54bcbf10553d Received: from ESESSHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 76.BD.04231.01FBCB45; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:23:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.195.1; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:23:44 +0100 Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518E71102B2; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:23:44 +0200 (EET) Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4960B4E936; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:25:36 +0200 (EET) Received: from m46.nomadiclab.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A304E8CC; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:25:35 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <54BCBF0F.1020501@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 10:23:43 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?QXJpIEtlcsOkbmVu?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7A/j0hBjffWVi8+f+EzeJW82NW ByaPJUt+Mnl8ufyZLYApissmJTUnsyy1SN8ugSvj4pnpTAVzhSvuPl7P3sD4i6+LkZNDQsBE YsuOqawQtpjEhXvr2boYuTiEBI4wSuxevo8JwtnAKPHr+EpmCGcPo0Tn7GtQZWsZJU60zIdy ljJKrD08kR1kGK+AtsSH3UfZQGwWAVWJufuuMILYbAK2Eqtf3WQBsUUFkiW6Xj5kgqgXlDg5 8wlYXETASeLI171gcWEBPYmF55+C9TILWEjMnH8eypaX2P52DjPE4WoSV89tArOFgHZd/feK cQKj0CwkY2chaZ+FpH0BI/MqRtHi1OLi3HQjY73Uoszk4uL8PL281JJNjMBwPrjlt+4OxtWv HQ8xCnAwKvHwGhTvCRFiTSwrrsw9xCjNwaIkzpvnsCFESCA9sSQ1OzW1ILUovqg0J7X4ECMT B6dUA6PJxkmmh48ZzfTc955xz/b3spIqxUfV5yrME9r0ruTt0ZYADTfOFU6HxM9vYT90sDGt 48DyLf11po1+6yYdE9DUmlffl9nOLlCxwv1PfonDy8btGV53XTqSot1Dkt/wrm7JPLNRRDiu oVPmH1fLXkGzhbcqeSdWNjxlfsF49/pLhhu3ni3l8VZiKc5INNRiLipOBADv53p2SAIAAA== Archived-At: Subject: [straw] draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 review X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:23:48 -0000 Hi, Here's my review of the "STUN Message Handling for SIP B2BUAs" draft. In general I think the draft is well written, but it would be good if the goals of the document were more clearly articulated. I assume the point is to make sure that NAT traversal with ICE works also when there are B2BUAs in place, but that seemed now only implicit. Or are there other/additional goals? It would be good to articulate the goals in the abstract and/or intro and show how these goals are achieved in the normative part. There is also detailed discussion for media-place B2BUAs but hardly anything for other B2BUAs. Should something normative be discussed for those too? Also the draft is missing security considerations section. Some more detailed comments below. 1. Introduction [RFC7362] describes how B2BUAs can perform Hosted NAT Traversal (HNT) to solve the NAT traversal problem. "solve" is a bit strong word here. RFC 7362 itself advises against the mechanisms described there, so perhaps say, for example: "[RFC7362] describes how B2BUAs can perform Hosted NAT Traversal (HNT) in certain environments." 3.1. Overview When one or both of the endpoints are behind a NAT, and there is a B2BUA between the endpoints, the B2BUAs MUST support ICE Does this apply to all B2BUAs, e.g. plain Proxy-B2BUA? That would not necessarily need to do, nor support, ICE at all? 3.2. ICE Termination with B2BUA If the B2BUA is in ICE lite mode as described in section 2.7 of When would the B2BUA be in lite and when in full mode? Should the B2BUA just follow the recommendation of 5245 for the agents or is there something more to take into consideration? 3.3. ICE Passthrough with B2BUAs The B2BUAs candidates will have lower-priority than the candidates provided by the endpoint, this way endpoint and remote peer This sentence seems to imply that the B2BUA candidates would automatically have lower priority. Is that the case (if so, where is it defined)? Or should there be some RFC2119 language about that? 4. Security Considerations This obviously still needs to be done. At least issues regarding B2BUA being able to see all (intended end-to-end?) secure traffic when terminating secure connections should be discussed or if this is already discussed in another document, that could be referenced. Cheers, Ari From nobody Mon Jan 19 09:06:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A751F1B2AEC for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:06:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QP_ahH5AW9YN for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:06:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CEFE1B2A0D for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:06:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4400; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1421687187; x=1422896787; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=uiK+XZS/jtjm/PLm7FuOMHkfBgl9nIWHx987RcWn/jA=; b=V/x75u+gAvky+cJ2omMCocBvqiFgeDdKwjw+njh5AVnyXjZJhAJwu0rW mlgrbj800CnEhyI6sxXsFDuambxrw0JS/T72D6bpM8lc9xPpLh7YhMFqA FXDmWcU1DZuJJ5hYd7qJeSP0qUZRYO7/jTGPdR2ZUZAJyXF6yGNGkz9mx c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FANQ4vVStJV2P/2dsb2JhbABbgwZSXMY4CoVxAoEjQwEBAQEBfYQMAQEBBAEBAWsXBAIBCBEDAQIvJwsdCAIEARKILA3PEQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARYEkAAGhCMFiUuDL4FfiReBFI1Zgz0ig25vgUV+AQEB X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,428,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="114635518" Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2015 17:06:26 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com [173.36.12.89]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0JH6P1o026071 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:06:25 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.51]) by xhc-aln-x15.cisco.com ([173.36.12.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 11:06:25 -0600 From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ari_Ker=E4nen?= , "straw@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [straw] draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 review Thread-Index: AQHQNApB2tSDc4Uhs0S2Fzvl4KhOFA== Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:06:24 +0000 Message-ID: References: <54BCBF0F.1020501@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <54BCBF0F.1020501@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117 x-originating-ip: [64.103.80.77] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [straw] draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 review X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:06:30 -0000 Hi Ari, Thanks a lot for your review and comments. See inline -----Original Message----- From: Ari Ker=E4nen Date: Monday, 19 January 2015 8:23 am To: "straw@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [straw] draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 review >Hi, > >Here's my review of the "STUN Message Handling for SIP B2BUAs" draft. > >In general I think the draft is well written, but it would be good if >the goals of the document were more clearly articulated. I assume the >point is to make sure that NAT traversal with ICE works also when there >are B2BUAs in place, but that seemed now only implicit. Or are there >other/additional goals? It would be good to articulate the goals in the >abstract and/or intro and show how these goals are achieved in the >normative part. I will add below text for the same. "The goal of this draft is to ensure that NAT(Firewall) traversal with ICE works also when there are B2BUAs in place and the B2BUAs handle ICE messages properly=B2 > >There is also detailed discussion for media-place B2BUAs but hardly >anything for other B2BUAs. Should something normative be discussed for >those too? Other types of B2BUA as defined in RFC 7092 (like signaling plane only, proxy e.t.c) does not handle media /come in the media path. This drafts picks up the B2BUA types that come in media path. I am not sure if we need any text for other types. Perhaps some text to just say that other types of B2BUA would have no considerations as they don=B9t come in media path should be enough. > >Also the draft is missing security considerations section. Yes we will add the same. > > >Some more detailed comments below. > >1. Introduction > > [RFC7362] > describes how B2BUAs can perform Hosted NAT Traversal (HNT) to solve > the NAT traversal problem. > >"solve" is a bit strong word here. RFC 7362 itself advises against the >mechanisms described there, so perhaps say, for example: "[RFC7362] >describes how B2BUAs can perform Hosted NAT Traversal (HNT) in certain >environments." Agree. Will re-word it > > >3.1. Overview > > When one or both of the endpoints are behind a NAT, and there is a > B2BUA between the endpoints, the B2BUAs MUST support ICE > >Does this apply to all B2BUAs, e.g. plain Proxy-B2BUA? That would not >necessarily need to do, nor support, ICE at all? Right. I think I will set the expectation at the beginning of the draft this is applicable for only B2BUAs that are in media path, not the other ones. > > >3.2. ICE Termination with B2BUA > > If the B2BUA is in ICE lite mode as described in section 2.7 of > >When would the B2BUA be in lite and when in full mode? Should the B2BUA >just follow the recommendation of 5245 for the agents or is there >something more to take into consideration? As I can see the recommendations of 5245 is enough. We don=B9t need any thing else.=20 > > >3.3. ICE Passthrough with B2BUAs > > The B2BUAs candidates will have lower-priority than the candidates > provided by the endpoint, this way endpoint and remote peer > >This sentence seems to imply that the B2BUA candidates would >automatically have lower priority. Is that the case (if so, where is it >defined)? Or should there be some RFC2119 language about that? Good point. This is needed for only those cases where B2BUA prefers not to be in media path(the decision to be in or not is not in the scope of this draft) if endpoints can reach directly. Only if endpoint fails to reach and you don=B9t have a TURN server and rather wants to use B2BUA then ICE checks will try B2BUA candidates (as it has lower priority) to see if it can reach by relaying via B2BUA. > > >4. Security Considerations > >This obviously still needs to be done. > >At least issues regarding B2BUA being able to see all (intended >end-to-end?) secure traffic when terminating secure connections should >be discussed or if this is already discussed in another document, that >could be referenced. Yes. We will add some text here for sure Ram > > >Cheers, >Ari > >_______________________________________________ >straw mailing list >straw@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw From nobody Tue Jan 20 05:44:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3761B2DB1 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 05:44:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id si_3GiQilIVz for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 05:44:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20D8D1B2A3A for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 05:44:46 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-f79fc6d000001087-1a-54be5bcc102d Received: from ESESSHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 55.8E.04231.DCB5EB45; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:44:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.44) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.195.1; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:44:45 +0100 Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.33.3]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B9F1102B2; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:44:44 +0200 (EET) Received: from nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ABD94E97B; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:46:38 +0200 (EET) Received: from m46.nomadiclab.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nomadiclab.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E794E8CC; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:46:37 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <54BE5BCC.7030003@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 15:44:44 +0200 From: =?windows-1252?Q?Ari_Ker=E4nen?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" References: <54BCBF0F.1020501@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrOLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje7Z6H0hBh928Vss79rBaHGr+TGr A5PHlN8bWT2WLPnJFMAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJUxacVKxoIetorrFw4zNzA+YOli5OSQEDCR uLR6OiOELSZx4d56ti5GLg4hgSOMEi3HFrBAOBsYJd41XYbK7GGU6G57BeWsZZR4+uUtlLOU UWLp4g/sIMN4BbQlVv1uYwWxWQRUJebu/A4WZxNwlLj98CVYXFQgWaLr5UMmiHpBiZMzn4Ad JSKgL/FmwzI2EJsZqHdKcydYvbCAlcS3RVPB4kICfhLHXywAO5wTqH79469ANgdQvb3Eg61l EK3yEs1bZzND/KYmcfXcJmaIVlWJq/9eMU5gFJ2FZPMshO5ZSLoXMDKvYhQtTi0uzk03MtZL LcpMLi7Oz9PLSy3ZxAiMiYNbfuvuYFz92vEQowAHoxIP74Yje0OEWBPLiitzDzFKc7AoifPm OWwIERJITyxJzU5NLUgtii8qzUktPsTIxMEp1cAos7fJanPQnWVSln1fe80079pF10ddWDRv brLAuwkN1Yl6d6a5vnV5zPmbf1u35U/xbQ9/eiZd4Dd8vzJEb1s290/X4DkrDP/XxU4wuPnR 5XvkzmCfHrFOG3cRfxnjiJxSjRUsiwMFbHs+74iYesA4LWd36Lde+VczZc5WWyzx5nKWT53H q6TEUpyRaKjFXFScCADyZpsxagIAAA== Archived-At: Cc: "straw@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [straw] draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 review X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:44:58 -0000 Hi Ram, Your suggestions look good to me. One additional comment below. On 19/01/15 19:06, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote: >> >3.2. ICE Termination with B2BUA >> > >> > If the B2BUA is in ICE lite mode as described in section 2.7 of >> > >> >When would the B2BUA be in lite and when in full mode? Should the B2BUA >> >just follow the recommendation of 5245 for the agents or is there >> >something more to take into consideration? > As I can see the recommendations of 5245 is enough. We donšt need any > thing else. In that case maybe you want to be a bit more clear on that. For example say that the recommendations for ICE agents set forth by 5245 also apply to B2BUAs. See especially https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#appendix-A Cheers, Ari From nobody Tue Jan 20 06:05:32 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84EF1B2A61 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 06:05:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.211 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eAiGycexvvyA for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 06:05:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A61A1B2A51 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 06:05:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1102; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1421762729; x=1422972329; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=b0O7uyx1wpo1qeaq2AAoKJHrBw1kw1NR2zjsgsmUros=; b=ENBDObAASI2AyVnRU2fMqKWECI9Pp8qlHeP6dgMIl8bLhxP+qsLslJTu 3ou3iOotiNFrEZkEqAhx0TEsCbJO6uXQWvSCLPojHPBHEDeHklxdnzYpP n7Nd47VabNfgC6byyhQbultbyVKcm5MbVMe/dNtGB53LwLhfBZTnoc+xY A=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiMFAKVfvlStJA2L/2dsb2JhbABbgwZSWATGMoVxAoEjQwEBAQEBfYQMAQEBBHkMBAIBCBEDAQIBLjIdCAIEDgWILA3PEQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARMEj3kHBoQjBY5Zg0eFUIEUjVmDPSKDbm+BRX4BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,434,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="388987288" Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2015 14:05:28 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0KE5R06012572 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:05:28 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.11.51]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:05:27 -0600 From: "Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)" To: =?windows-1254?Q?Ari_Ker=E4nen?= Thread-Topic: [straw] draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 review Thread-Index: AQHQNLokxo5cw8tP/EGClKLPhp7tkw== Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:05:26 +0000 Message-ID: References: <54BCBF0F.1020501@ericsson.com> <54BE5BCC.7030003@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <54BE5BCC.7030003@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117 x-originating-ip: [64.103.80.77] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1254" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: Cc: "straw@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [straw] draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 review X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:05:31 -0000 Sure. Will do that. Thanks, Ram -----Original Message----- From: Ari Ker=E4nen Date: Tuesday, 20 January 2015 1:44 pm To: Cisco Employee Cc: "straw@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [straw] draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-stun-00 review >Hi Ram, > >Your suggestions look good to me. One additional comment below. > >On 19/01/15 19:06, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote: >>> >3.2. ICE Termination with B2BUA >>> > >>> > If the B2BUA is in ICE lite mode as described in section 2.7 of >>> > >>> >When would the B2BUA be in lite and when in full mode? Should the >>>B2BUA >>> >just follow the recommendation of 5245 for the agents or is there >>> >something more to take into consideration? >> As I can see the recommendations of 5245 is enough. We don=B9t need any >> thing else. > >In that case maybe you want to be a bit more clear on that. For example >say that the recommendations for ICE agents set forth by 5245 also apply >to B2BUAs. See especially https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#appendix-A > > >Cheers, >Ari