RE: [NSIS] AD review: draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-09 (NAT traversal, M3, also L2/L19/L24)
"Hancock, Robert" <robert.hancock@roke.co.uk> Tue, 20 June 2006 08:44 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fsbqt-0000og-Lm; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:44:51 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fsbqs-0000oY-Gd for nsis@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:44:50 -0400
Received: from rsys002x.roke.co.uk ([193.118.201.109]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fsbqo-0001mj-QB for nsis@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:44:50 -0400
Received: from rsys005a.comm.ad.roke.co.uk (rsys005a [193.118.193.85]) by rsys002x.roke.co.uk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k5K8iWO6009813; Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:44:34 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [NSIS] AD review: draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-09 (NAT traversal, M3, also L2/L19/L24)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 09:44:32 +0100
Message-ID: <A632AD91CF90F24A87C42F6B96ADE5C57EBFB3@rsys005a.comm.ad.roke.co.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [NSIS] AD review: draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-09 (NAT traversal, M3, also L2/L19/L24)
Thread-Index: AcaRUXUz39tvYFmhR7yzr1y/8MafhwC9BBrA
From: "Hancock, Robert" <robert.hancock@roke.co.uk>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, john.loughney@nokia.com
X-MailScanner-roke.co.uk: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-roke.co.uk-SpamCheck:
X-MailScanner-From: robert.hancock@roke.co.uk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 156eddb66af16eef49a76ae923b15b92
Cc: nsis@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling <nsis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:nsis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: nsis-bounces@ietf.org
Hi all, I think how to handle this set of comments is now pretty clear. I've pasted this discussion thread into the issue tracker at (http://nsis.srmr.co.uk/cgi-bin/roundup.cgi/nsis-ntlp-issues/issue109) and they will be implemented in version -10. cheers, r. > -----Original Message----- > From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com] > Sent: 16 June 2006 15:30 > To: john.loughney@nokia.com > Cc: Hancock, Robert; nsis@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [NSIS] AD review: draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-09 (NAT > traversal, M3,also L2/L19/L24) > > > Hi, > > I think the proposed solution in these email is fine. I am also fine > with maintaining the split. But please be clear about it. > > Cheers > > Magnus > > john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > > Hi all, > > > >>> M3. NAT traversal for GIST. > >>> Section 7.2: > >>> > >>> What plans are there for clearly defining NAT behavior > for GIST and > >>> the relevant NSLPs? I think one should avoid repeating > the mistake > >>> with NATs of not specifying the behavior sufficiently for > NSIS. Thus > > I > >>> think there is need to specify in great deal what is > going to happen > >>> at the translation. > >> There is already an individual I-D which describes the > >> required behaviour on a NAT, > >> draft-pashalidis-nsis-gimps-nattraversal-02.txt > >> (see in particular section 6). I believe that this document > >> should become a working group document (of at least some > >> working group - I'm not clear on the relationship with > behave here). > > > > I think that the NAT traversal material should belong in a separate > > document - as we have seen with STUN, for example, the NAT > > considerations > > change - so I think it makes sense to have it separate. > > > >> What we've tried to do so far is distinguish the GIST > >> specification, i.e. what nodes implementing GIST have to do, > >>from the NAT specification, i.e. what NAT nodes have to do > >> with GIST messages. > >> The overall solution is outlined here in the GIST spec, but > >> there is a lot more detail that can be added about what NATs > >> should do (specifically in terms of managing their bindings) > >> which is not really a concern of the GIST implementor so it > >> seems reasonable to keep the two separate. > > > > Agreed. > > > >>> L2. Section 3.3, page 12, second paragraph: > >>> " In addition, it should be noted that NAT traversal almost > > certainly > >>> requires transformation of the MRI field in GIST messages (see > >>> Section 7.2). Although the transformation does not have to be > >>> defined as part of the standard, the impact on existing > > GIST-aware > >>> NAT implementations should be considered." > >>> > >>> It seems that not defining the NAT behavior for GIST can > potentially > >>> cause interop problems and make it very hard to use. What is the > > plans > >>> for addressing this? Are there already existing GIST-aware NATs? > >> This is probably badly worded. What we are trying to say is > >> that, just as there is a split: > >> a) the GIST spec, and > >> b) how NATs handle GIST messages > >> > >> when you define a new MRM there are two things to do: > >> a') how to modify GIST implementations to handle the MRM > >> b') how to modify NATs to handle the new MRM > >> > >> Section 3.3 is saying that the information provided as part of > >> (a') does not have to define all the details of NAT traversal, > >> but that (b') has to be considered, e.g. if necessary as an > >> extension to the base GIST nat traversal specification. > > > > I think a rewording of the text in 3.3 would be a good idea. > > > >> (As an aside, there is conceptually a class of MRMs that will > >> in fact be transparent to NATs. It may be valuable to > >> highlight those in some way so that they can be deployed > >> without having to update NATs where the update only consists > >> of the information "you don't have to do anything".) > >> > >> (Another aside: the GIST NAT traversal functionality has been > >> implemented by at least one team. I don't believe it has made > >> it into any standard distributions. The 'existing' in the spec > >> means 'existing at the time that the new MRM is being proposed'.) > >> > >>> L19. Section 7.2, page 74: > >>> > >>> "Note that Confirm messages are not translated." > >>> > >>> Why isn't them? Also where is that specified? And what is really > > meant > >>> with "not translated"? > >> Well, the solution is designed so they don't need to be > translated. > >> (If they did, it would be very tricky, since often they are > >> carried in C-mode and are invisible to NATs anyway.) Probably > >> the specification should say more explicitly "only Query > >> messages and messages with a NTO are translated by the NAT". > >> > >> "Not translated" means "the payload of the UDP message is not > >> translated". So that can also be made more explicit. > > > > Please do make it more explicit. > > > >>> L24. Section A.3.8: > >>> "the number of GIST payloads translated by the NAT" > >>> > >>> The NAT? There might be several NATs on the path and it > is not clear > >>> how that is handled. One concern would be if different > NATs translate > > > >>> different fields. > >> The idea is that the 'list of translated objects' field > >> contains the objects that have been successfully translated by > >> every NAT. > >> In other words, it is the intersection of the translation > >> capabilities of the set of traversed NATs. The first NAT > >> initialises it, subsequent NATs may have to remove objects > >> which it could not translate. > >> The "Type-Count" field is just the length of this list (to > >> allow the message to be parsed). This needs to be made clearer > >> in the spec. > > > > If you can add this to your ToDo list for the update, that would be > > great. > > > > thanks, > > John > > > > > > > -- > > Magnus Westerlund > > Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287 > Torshamsgatan 23 | Fax +46 8 7575550 > S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com > _______________________________________________ nsis mailing list nsis@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
- RE: [NSIS] AD review: draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-09 (NA… Hancock, Robert
- RE: [NSIS] AD review: draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-09 (NA… john.loughney
- Re: [NSIS] AD review: draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-09 (NA… Magnus Westerlund
- RE: [NSIS] AD review: draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-09 (NA… Hancock, Robert