Subject: [midcom] STUN ietf-draft 05

From: "Panayiotis A. Thermos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 17:29:46 -0500

greetings,

Marc Petrovic pointed to me that an early implementation
of STUN  at ( http://www.columbia.edu/~pt81/cs6901-08/cs6901-08.html)
is setting the family field value of a STUN mesage, to 01 instead of 02
(to indicate family IPv4) as it is noted in the  the latest STUN draft.
Earlier versions of the draft  state to set the value to 02 (when using
IPv6).
Was this intented, and if so, what is the rationale behind it?

Peter

PS: For those interested, I will be posting a new STUN implementation at
the above URL soon after
        the SIPit event this week.

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

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:29:16 -0500

I wish I had a better answer, but I have no idea why this changed. It 
could be that it was a copy-paste error that got snuck in when that 
paragraph was rewritten.

STUN is now in auth48, so it is conceivable to change it back, although 
I am not sure that is the right thing. Can people let me know which 
value they are using in their implementations today?

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