RE: draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits (was RE: Review of draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-09)

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Melinda, 

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Led

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Melinda Shore
> Envoyé : mardi 11 avril 2017 19:32
> À : [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits (was RE: Review of draft-
> mm-wg-effect-encrypt-09)
> 
> On 4/11/17 9:18 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> > One could give a lot of advice for design of protocols with
> > "friendly" middle boxes.  Merely saying "hey, they are good" is not
> > enough.  We might want to revisit end-to-end protocol design as well
> > (e.g., maybe ICMP isn't working so well; what can we do?).
> 
> There have been a number of efforts to provide mechanisms for
> applications to communicate explicitly with middleboxes.  None
> has gotten any traction,

[Med] I'm not sure "None" and "any" reflect the deployment realty I'm aware of:
* The BEHAVE recommendations for TCP(RFC5382)/UDP(RFC4787)/ICMP(RFC5508) and CGNs (RFC6888) are widely followed by CGN vendors. 
* The NAT64 (RFC6146)/DS-Lite CGN (RFC6333) specifications that is aligned with IETF BEHAVE recommendations are deployed in many networks with default behaviors that are friendly to applications.
* Our customers are making use of PCP (RFC6887) to interact with CGNs.
* Applications that make use of UPnP-IGD interact with an CGN server by means of a IGD/PC IWG (RFC 6970)
* Applications embedded on the CPE can interact with a local PCP client.

Sometimes the problem is not on the network side but elsewhere.       

 and for the moment it looks like
> anything that requires changes to middleboxes along those
> lines is unlikely to be successful.  That said:
> 
> > IMO the IETF must not publish draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits as
> > it is today.
> 
> No, clearly not.  I'm actually not sure I see a lot of benefit
> to publishing a more balanced document, either, in the sense that
> it's not likely to lead anybody to do anything differently.

[Med] I disagree with this position. Many times the IETF decided to not hide a problem but to deal with it, interesting solutions are proposed with concrete deployments. Of course, resistance to some proposals may have consequences on some operators plans that are obliged to deploy **mature solutions they had at hand**. 

> 
> Melinda