IETF Logo Mail Archive

[BEHAVE] Comments on draft-penno-behave-rfc4787-5382-5508-bis-02

Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> Thu, 19 January 2012 23:24 UTC

Return-Path: <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DCBA21F84FE for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:24:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d3AUIGiz7pN4 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:24:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF7D21F84FD for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:24:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LY2004IFJNY3D@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for behave@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:23:58 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LY200B6KJNYOZ@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for behave@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:23:58 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml213-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGN16644; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:23:57 +0800
Received: from SZXEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.138) by szxeml213-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:23:49 +0800
Received: from SZXEML526-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.225]) by szxeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:23:37 +0800
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:23:36 +0000
From: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.212.244.172]
To: Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>
Message-id: <C0E0A32284495243BDE0AC8A066631A80C275C87@szxeml526-mbs.china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Thread-topic: Comments on draft-penno-behave-rfc4787-5382-5508-bis-02
Thread-index: AczXAVxqeBpYxp36RcGhFo8/3C2omA==
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: AK9r AUv9 BZLc CVFT C4tF Fu3m Gnx3 GoQk Hsgb HyiB IMa6 Ic40 JGJd JGUf JpCC Kuti; 1; YgBlAGgAYQB2AGUAQABpAGUAdABmAC4AbwByAGcA; Sosha1_v1; 7; {4D90CBC2-75F7-4E36-A026-23D74AF4F3A9}; dABpAG4AYQAuAHQAcwBvAHUALgB6AG8AdQB0AGkAbgBnAEAAaAB1AGEAdwBlAGkALgBjAG8AbQA=; Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:23:33 GMT; QwBvAG0AbQBlAG4AdABzACAAbwBuACAAZAByAGEAZgB0AC0AcABlAG4AbgBvAC0AYgBlAGgAYQB2AGUALQByAGYAYwA0ADcAOAA3AC0ANQAzADgAMgAtADUANQAwADgALQBiAGkAcwAtADAAMgA=
x-cr-puzzleid: {4D90CBC2-75F7-4E36-A026-23D74AF4F3A9}
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Subject: [BEHAVE] Comments on draft-penno-behave-rfc4787-5382-5508-bis-02
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:24:09 -0000

8.  EIM Protocol Independent

   [RFC4787] [RFC5382]: REQ-1 Current RFCs do not specify whether EIM
   are protocol independent.  In other words, if a outbound TCP SYN
   creates a mapping it is left undefined whether outbound UDP can reuse
   such mapping and create session.  On the other hand, Stateful NAT64
   [RFC6146] clearly specifies three binding information bases (TCP,
   UDP, ICMP).  This document clarifies that EIM mappings SHOULD be
   protocol dependent .  A knob MAY be provided in order allow protocols
   that multiplex TCP and UDP over the same source IP and port to use a
   single mapping.

Would it be more accurate changing the title to "EIM Protocol Dependent", since "This document clarifies that EIM mappings SHOULD be protocol dependent ."?
BTW, there is a redundant space after "dependent".


Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email