Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-10
Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com> Wed, 14 October 2015 15:41 UTC
Return-Path: <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135051ACC88 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 DDgB-HvXqxEM for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 323EA1ACC8A for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:41:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f792c6d00000686a-93-561e0b3e09df
Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9B.14.26730.E3B0E165; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:58:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUSAAMB107.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.124]) by EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.78]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 14 Oct 2015 11:41:15 -0400
From: Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com>
To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-10
Thread-Index: AdEEsYXry8YyyGNTSQm7Xt/5JSS3SQA2sBSgABGCrRAAHSW24AAT8G/Q
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:41:14 +0000
Message-ID: <ABCAA4EF18F17B4FB619EA93DEF7939A45436882@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
References: <ABCAA4EF18F17B4FB619EA93DEF7939A45432563@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C72649@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <ABCAA4EF18F17B4FB619EA93DEF7939A454350E8@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C72ED7@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C72ED7@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXSPn649t1yYwdMmAYsDnW0sFldffWax OPz2KbsDs8eSJT+ZPFqenWTz+HL5M1sAcxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXRuPJ3+wFB5wqXn7exNjA +N2oi5GTQ0LAROJ22wF2CFtM4sK99WxdjFwcQgJHGSWezd3ACOEsZ5R4f20zG0gVm4CFxPbf z1lBbBEBR4kZr2aDdTALdDBKLHnfBpYQFnCWeDVlDztEkYvEn7ZvjBC2m8S1aQ/AalgEVCXu X/oHFucV8JVYOKcTattBJon1rXuYQRKcAkkSqx+vBitiBLrv+6k1TCA2s4C4xK0n85kg7haQ WLLnPDOELSrx8vE/VghbSWLS0nOsEPV6EjemTmGDsLUlli18zQyxWFDi5MwnLBMYxWYhGTsL ScssJC2zkLQsYGRZxchRWpxalptuZLiJERg/xyTYHHcwLvhkeYhRgINRiYd3gZtsmBBrYllx Ze4hRmkOFiVx3nkz7ocKCaQnlqRmp6YWpBbFF5XmpBYfYmTi4JRqYNzz8PrRkmMcGo8CzO1T WxTeHNQSPLHv/rTlHy5wcEYKhyxaHtaqfqOmi6s09/+U38oqPG+L7DbtZplhv/E8W3vzCna+ B7xW9rwBVYksHKJZH09enF39eyOLn3971Qa1tpUXDawUL/tX2J5MFP7zSSL76mqFGLE2V/57 sbrRVQVCRVUKqhe3KLEUZyQaajEXFScCAEE7kOOAAgAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/oPckQixZHqpUJzXzGShK5nyWpHY>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pcp-port-set.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pcp-port-set.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-10
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:41:20 -0000
Hi, Thank you Mohamed, I am ok with the clarifications and changes. Best, Meral > -----Original Message----- > From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 11:32 PM > To: Meral Shirazipour > Cc: draft-ietf-pcp-port-set.all@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-10 > > Hi Miral, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Meral Shirazipour [mailto:meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com] > > Envoyé : mardi 13 octobre 2015 18:31 > > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > > Cc : draft-ietf-pcp-port-set.all@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org > > Objet : RE: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-10 > > > > Hi, > > Many thanks for the clarifications. Please see inline. > > > > Best, > > Meral > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com > > > [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:42 AM > > > To: Meral Shirazipour; draft-ietf-pcp-port-set.all@tools.ietf.org; > > > gen- art@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-10 > > > > > > Dear Meral, > > > > > > Many thanks for the review. > > > > > > Please see inline. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Med > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > > > De : Meral Shirazipour [mailto:meral.shirazipour@ericsson.com] > > > > Envoyé : lundi 12 octobre 2015 07:49 À : > > > > draft-ietf-pcp-port-set.all@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org Objet > > > > : Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-10 > > > > > > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background > > > > on > > > > Gen- ART, please see the FAQ at > > > > http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. > > > > > > > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call > > > > comments you may receive. > > > > > > > > Document: draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-10 > > > > Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour > > > > Review Date: 2015-10-10 > > > > IETF LC End Date: 2015-10-14 > > > > IESG Telechat date: NA > > > > > > > > > > > > Summary: > > > > This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I > > > > have some comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > Major issues: > > > > N/A > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > [Med] I'm not sure to get your point, especially the link with the > > sentence > > > you quoted. But fwiw policies about granted port ranges (size), > > > ports to > > be > > > excluded from assignment, etc. are implementation-specific. These > > > are similar to the behavior of the PCP server assigning single port > > > numbers (RFC6887). If the question is about renewal and/or port > > > overlap, the > > behavior > > > is called out in Section 4.4. > > > > > > > [MSh] Sorry I was a bit unclear here. I was wondering what happens if > > the client asks with 0xffff, receives e.g. 100 ports but only uses 20 of them. > > What happens to the rest? Would they be unused until the next renewal? > > If so efficiency is not affected? > > [please also see the thread reply by Simon] > > [Med] Thank you for clarifying. The size of port ranges that are assigned to > PCP clients is deployment-specific. Operators will need to tune the maximum > size of the port sets to be assigned taking into account various inputs such as: > optimize the use of the shared addresses, reduce the amount of pcp > messages, etc. Of course, efficiency will depend on the size of the assigned > port set and the actual usage from this set. This is exactly the same issue with > setting a port quota. > > FWIW, below is provided a sample YANG excerpt to configure the port set > feature in a PCP server. > > grouping port-set-option { > description > "PORT_SET option."; > > leaf port-set-enable { > type boolean; > description > "Enable/disable PORT_SET option."; > } > > leaf default-port-set-size { > type uint16; > description > "Indicates the default size of a port set."; > } > > leaf maximum-port-set-size { > type uint16; > description > "Indicates the maximum size of a port set."; > } > } > > It is up to each operator to set those parameters. Traffic analyses are likely to > help operators to set the appropriate values. > > The port-set draft does not need to deal with these aspects as those are > deployment-specific. > > > > > > > > > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > > > -[Page 6], "In particular, the PREFER_FAILURE option MUST NOT be > > > > present in a request that contains a PORT_SET option.". > > > > Suggestion: Please add a sentence after this one suggesting why > > > > PREFER_FAILURE option MUST NOT be used. It was not clear to me > > > > until I read the rest of the draft...although I am still not sure > > > > why this behavior is to be a MUST NOT. > > > > > > [Med] PREFER_FAILURE was specifically designed for the interworking > > > with UPnP IGD:1 (RF6970). The rationale why it should not be used by > > > other > > PCP > > > clients (than the iwf) is discussed in Section 13.2 of RFC6887. The > > language in > > > this draft is stronger than RFC6887, though. The decision about the > > language > > > to use was made in an interim meeting (see the minutes at: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/08/26/pcp/minutes/minut > > > es -interim-2014-pcp-1). We can add the following sentence. > > > > > > NEW: > > > As a reminder PREFER_FAILURE was specifically designed for the > > > Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device - Port > > > Control Protocol Interworking Function (IGD-PCP IWF) [RF6970]. The > > > reasons for not recommending the use of PREFER_FAILURE are discussed > > > in Section 13.2 of [RFC6887]. > > > > > > > [MSh] That looks great, thank you. > > [Med] This will be added to the next revision of the draft. > > > > > > > > > > > -[Page 8], Section 4.3, "There is intentionally no port set > > > > capability discovery mechanism.". > > > > What is the intention? > > > > > > [Med] This sentence is there to explicitly call out that this > > specification does > > > not define a mean to discover whether the PCP server support the > > > port > > set > > > capability. As a generic comment, the working group felt it is early > > > to > > define a > > > mechanism to retrieve the capabilities of the PCP server (and the > > > PCP- controlled device): see the minutes available here: > > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-pcp (search > > > for draft-boucadair-pcp-capability). > > > > > > I could not find anything on the list discussion. > > > > It would be good to clarify this to make this section puroposeful. > > > > > > > > > > [Med] This section was added to address the comment recorded in the > > > minutes: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/minutes/minutes-88-pcp. > > > See the changes here: > > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-pcp-port- > > set- > > > 04&url2=draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-05 > > > > > > > [MSh] Thank you for the pointers, so if I understand correctly the > > reason is "because they cause unnecessary failures" ? > > > > [Med] Yes, that was the main issue raised at that time. After re-reading the > text, I think we can delete "There is intentionally no port set capability > discovery mechanism.", the rest of the paragraph is clear enough. > > > > > > > -[Page 16] , Ref. [RFC7596] should be revised-it still refers to > > > > the draft > > > > > > [Med] Thank you for catching this. This will be fixed.
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-… Meral Shirazipour
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Simon Perreault
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Meral Shirazipour
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Meral Shirazipour
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Meral Shirazipour
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-i… Meral Shirazipour