Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-10

[Meral Shirazipour <[e-mail]>]

Hi Simon,
  Thank you for the reply. Please also see the exchange with Mohamed on this thread. 
I agree that the client may not know in advance, but I think what happens to the unused ports (i.e. when are they released?) is worth mentioning. A heuristic, guidance etc. would be useful. Also what-if scenarios, like many clients at once request with 0xffff, how should the server react to that?

Best,
Meral

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Perreault [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 5:40 AM
> To: Meral Shirazipour; [e-mail]; gen-
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-10
> 
> Le 2015-10-12 01:49, Meral Shirazipour a écrit :
> > Minor issues:
> > -[Page 7], Section 4.1, "If the PCP Client does not know the exact number of
> ports its requires, it MAY then set the Port Set Size to 0xffff, indicating that it
> is willing to accept as many ports as the PCP server can offer."
> > Question/clarification to add: Mention if there a mechanism where the
> server will know which of the mapped ports are going to be used by the
> client? and which mappings can be discarded/reused in a subsequent
> request.
> 
> Not sure what you mean exactly. The use case we had in mind when we
> wrote that sentence was a LW4o6 B4 that would fetch as many ports as it
> could to use as a port pool. So it doesn't know in advance how many ports it
> will use. It's just asking for as many as the AFTR is willing to provide. I suppose
> a heuristic to release unused ports could be possible, but it would make
> much more sense to simply configure the maximum port set size on the AFTR
> to a value that makes operational sense.
> 
> Does that answer your question? Do you think changes to the text are
> warranted?
> 
> Simon