Re: [OPSAWG] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-16: (with COMMENT)

[<[e-mail]>]

Re-,

Removed the duplicate hold-down text.  

Thank you. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : mardi 25 septembre 2018 23:45
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> Cc : The IESG; [e-mail]; Joe Clarke; opsawg-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-16:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 09:41:32PM +0000, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Re-,
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Envoyé : mardi 25 septembre 2018 23:35
> > > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> > > Cc : The IESG; [e-mail]; Joe Clarke; opsawg-
> > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Objet : Re: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-
> 16:
> > > (with COMMENT)
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 09:27:08PM +0000, [e-mail]
> wrote:
> > > > Hi Benjamin,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the comments.
> > > >
> > > > Please see inline.
> > >
> > > Also inline.
> > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Med
> > > >
> > > > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > > De : Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > Envoyé : mardi 25 septembre 2018 20:31
> > > > > À : The IESG
> > > > > Cc : [e-mail]; Joe Clarke; opsawg-
> > > [e-mail];
> > > > > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > > > Objet : Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-
> 16:
> > > (with
> > > > > COMMENT)
> > > > >
> > > > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> > > > > draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-16: No Objection
> > > > >
> > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > > > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> this
> > > > > introductory paragraph, however.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-
> criteria.html
> > > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > > > > COMMENT:
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the easy-to-read document!  I just have a few comments and
> > > > > potential nits
> > > > > I noticed.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was somewhat interesting to me that basically everything is config
> rw,
> > > > > including ports and
> > > > > addresses that would normally be assigned internally by the NAT, but
> I
> > > don't
> > > > > see this as
> > > > > problematic.
> > > >
> > > > [Med] This is a good point. Actually, we are using rw because the same
> > > structure is also used for static mappings. That is, the external port
> and IP
> > > address are also provided.
> > >
> > > I had even internalized that, just somehow didn't make the connection.
> > > Thanks for setting me straight.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Section 2.1
> > > > >
> > > > >                               Considerations about instructing
> explicit
> > > > >    dynamic means (e.g., [RFC6887], [RFC6736], or [RFC8045]) are out
> of
> > > > >    scope.  [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm having trouble parsing this; is it maybe "instructing by explicit
> > > > > dynamic means" or "explicit dynamic mappings"?
> > > >
> > > > [Med] Changed to "Considerations about instructing by explicit dynamic
> > > means". Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Section 3
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the relationship between hold-down-timeout and hold-down-max -
> -
> > > that
> > > > > is, if the maximum number of ports in the pool gets hit, to the
> oldest
> > > > > ports in the pool get ejected even if they haven't timed out, or what
> > > > > happens?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Med] deallocated ports are added to the hold-down pool till a max is
> > > reached; ports are removed from that pool upon the expiry of the hold-
> down-
> > > timeout. New deallocated ports cannot be added if the pool reaches its
> max.
> > >
> > > Okay, so if the hold-down pool is full and a mapping's expiration timer
> > > expires, does that port immediately become free to use
> >
> > [Med] Yes.
> 
> Got it, thanks.
> 
> I wonder if the text other than "Maximum ports in the Hold down timer pool"
> in the description for hold-down-max (which, incidentally, seems to just be
> a differently formatted version of the description for hold-down-timeout)
> could be removed, then.  I think that would have made me less likely to be
> confused about which value takes precedence.
> 
> -Benjamin