Re: Review of draft-ietf-behave-dccp-04

Rémi -

>> (2) On requirements 1 and 3:
>>
>>         REQ-1: A NAT MUST have an "Endpoint-Independent Mapping"
>>         behavior for DCCP.
>>
>>         REQ-3: If application transparency is most important, it is
>>         RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an "Endpoint-independent  
>> filtering"
>>         behavior for DCCP.  If a more stringent filtering behavior is
>>         most important, it is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an
>>         "Address-dependent filtering" behavior.
>>
>>     These requirements are general and not specific to DCCP.  Would  
>> it
>>     make sense to specify them in a separate RFC for NATs in general,
>>     independent of any specific transport protocol?
>
> Whether it's of any use depends on the connection model (or lack  
> thereof) of
> the transport protocol. I don't want to presume that this would make  
> sense
> for all future transport protocols. [...]

I don't agree.  A reason for recommending endpoint-independent mapping  
and
filtering is to enable applications to refer each other to a host  
behind a NAT.
This is desirable independent of the transport protocol.

>> (3) On requirement 6:
>>
>>         REQ-6: If a NAT includes ALGs, it MUST NOT affect DCCP.
>>
>>     This requirement is not 100% clear.  I am assuming it means:   
>> "If a
>>     NAT includes ALGs, the NAT MUST NOT affect DCCP packets that are
>>     processed by one of those ALGs."  Suggest to reword the  
>> requirement
>>     in this way.
>
> This reads worse to me. An ALG cannot "process" DCCP packets if it  
> does not
> affect in any way. There is already a IESG discuss on this. What  
> about this?
>
>          REQ-6: If a NAT includes ALGs, they MUST NOT affect DCCP.

Make it even clearer:

           REQ-6: If a NAT includes ALGs, the ALGs MUST NOT affect DCCP.

- Christian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf