On Jun 7, 2019, at 4:39 AM, Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The specification has two sections 14 and 15 (IP Header Fields for UDP-to- >> UDP translation and IP Header Fields for TCP-to-UDP translation) to discuss >> direct translations. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5766 only covered UDP-to- >> UDP translation in Section 12. >> >> Yes, but both sections ignore the impact of transport options - both current >> for TCP and pending for UDP. These are ignored both when packets with >> such transport options are received (the input packet to the translation) and >> whether / how they are used on transmit (the output packet) > > TURN is used to relay real-time data (e.g. audio and video streams) and the approach taken by VOIP related specifications > is to avoid fragmentation for RTP packets Sec 2.8 mentions RTP as one use case envisioned (at this point, it’d be fair to ask this revision to clarify whether that turned out to be true).. But it isn’t indicated as the only use case. Regardless, though, this doesn’t impact the concern raised above. RTP could still employ transport options. And my concern on this point goes beyond the issue of fragmentation. It applies to any transport option that might be received and any that might be added in the converted transmission. Joe
