Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-15: (with DISCUSS)
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 24 September 2018 09:36 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A7D130E79; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 02:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 TRB8Ir7eNhQC; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 02:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orange.com (mta239.mail.business.static.orange.com [80.12.66.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44BE2130E78; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 02:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar03.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.5]) by opfedar24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42JfGn69Mjz5vpr; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:36:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.42]) by opfedar03.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42JfGn5M2zzCqkh; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:36:33 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM41.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::c845:f762:8997:ec86%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:36:33 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang@ietf.org>, "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-15: (with DISCUSS)
Thread-Index: AQHUUcbsUZwhBdZzSE2IUFTKQ+jAvaT+6IPQgAAPooCAACVKEP//748AgAAiXzA=
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 09:36:33 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DFE5CD1@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <153754677994.7443.9092939251929421656.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DFE5AA0@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <4E1DE484-9B3C-4977-A4F3-13F716A109AD@kuehlewind.net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DFE5C3E@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <EB4FE187-29CE-4EB9-92AF-CE755DB72958@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <EB4FE187-29CE-4EB9-92AF-CE755DB72958@kuehlewind.net>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.2]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/Njp2wUEkqu0z_AVcIrxwo4SAgk0>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-15: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 09:36:37 -0000
Re-, I'm afraid I cannot do this modification because that text is referring to RFC6147 which says explicitly: == This document describes stateful NAT64 translation, which allows IPv6-only clients to contact IPv4 servers using unicast UDP, TCP, or ICMP. == Thank you. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net] > Envoyé : lundi 24 septembre 2018 11:29 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > Cc : The IESG; opsawg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang@ietf.org; opsawg- > chairs@ietf.org > Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang- > 15: (with DISCUSS) > > Hi Med, > > one more small nit that I saw just now. Maybe you can change > > "NAT64 translation allows IPv6-only clients to contact IPv4 > servers using unicast UDP, TCP, or ICMP.“ > > to something like > > "NAT64 translation allows IPv6-only clients to contact IPv4 > servers using e.g. UDP, TCP, or ICMP.“ > > Thanks! > Mirja > > > > > Am 24.09.2018 um 10:55 schrieb <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>: > > > > Re-, > > > > Please see inline. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- > >> De : Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net] > >> Envoyé : lundi 24 septembre 2018 10:14 > >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN > >> Cc : The IESG; opsawg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang@ietf.org; > opsawg- > >> chairs@ietf.org > >> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat- > yang- > >> 15: (with DISCUSS) > >> > >> Hi Med, > >> > >> thanks for you reply. It makes sense that you may want different values > for > >> different protocol in the case of UDP and TCP. > > However, I think the question > >> is not that much which protocol but which properties does the protocol > have, > >> e.g. all connection-oriented protocol probably have some kind of handshake > >> that can be used to trigger these timers. > >> > > > > [Med] I hear you... but the issue is the other way around: availability of > a stateful implementation which adheres to that design approach. > > > > > >> Is it maybe possible to model these times generally for certain protocol > >> feature and the have the ability to overwrite these „default“ values with > >> protocol-specific values? > > > > [Med] There are ways to overwrite default values, e.g., define a type and > derive new one from it. Nevertheless, it is simpler to define explicit timers > as we have done in the document given that protocol differentiation is a > requirement. One for UDP, one for ICMP, and state-specific timers for TCP. > Future documents can re-use state-specific timers for generic configuration > matters, if needed. > > > >> > >> Given that these protocol specific differences especially in NAT are a > huge > >> problem for the deployment of new protocol it would be really nice if this > >> could be model in a generic as possible way. E.g. would be nice to be able > to > >> use the same config for the config for quic (one a NAT is implemented to > >> detect the quic handshake over udp). > > > > [Med] For the quic example, one would argue that the UDP-related config > parameters are sufficient; there is even no need to inspect whether this is > quic or plain UDP packet. > > > >> > >> Mirja > >> > >> > >> > >>> Am 24.09.2018 um 07:39 schrieb <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > >> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>: > >>> > >>> Hi Mirja, > >>> > >>> Thank you for the review. > >>> > >>> Please see inline. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Med > >>> > >>>> -----Message d'origine----- > >>>> De : OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Mirja > Kühlewind > >>>> Envoyé : vendredi 21 septembre 2018 18:20 > >>>> À : The IESG > >>>> Cc : opsawg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang@ietf.org; opsawg- > >>>> chairs@ietf.org > >>>> Objet : [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat- > yang- > >> 15: > >>>> (with DISCUSS) > >>>> > >>>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for > >>>> draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-15: Discuss > >>>> > >>>> 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/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> DISCUSS: > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for a well-written document and also for considering other > >> protocols > >>>> like SCTP. I've put in a discuss because I would really like have a > quick > >>>> discussion here to double-check that we do the right thing, however, it > >> might > >>>> well be that we can resolve this discuss without any changes. My > question > >> is: > >>>> given the model is designed to be generic enough to incorporate other > >>>> transport > >>>> protocols, I'm wondering if it would be possible to also define the > timers > >>>> you > >>>> have there in a more generic way such that they can be re-used for other > >>>> protocols (maybe just changing the name and adding some explanation > text). > >>> > >>> [Med] The document includes timers that are valid for any transport > >> protocol (e.g., per-port-timeout, hold-down, etc.). Things are more > >> complicated for the other timers. For example, one could imagine that the > >> same timer can be used to timeout any session (e.g., UDP and ICMP), > >> nevertheless we do have different default/recommended values per transport > >> protocol (e.g., 300s for UDP and 60s for ICMP). Also, existing > >> implementations/deployments are used to allow for differentiating the > >> behavior per transport protocol. For TCP, there are more state compared to > >> UDP, hence the need for more specific timers. Other protocols may reuse > some > >> of these specific timers if needed. This should be described in an > extension > >> document, not in this one. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> As a side node: I myself have been working on a model for a > >>>> protocol-independent state machine a bit (see draft-trammell-plus- > >>>> statefulness; > >>>> now expired); maybe that's a helpful reference to have a quick look at… > >>>> > >>> > >>> [Med] Thank you for the reference. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> OPSAWG mailing list > >>>> OPSAWG@ietf.org > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > >
- [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-i… Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
- [OPSAWG] some too late nits in draft-ietf-opsawg-… tom petch
- Re: [OPSAWG] some too late nits in draft-ietf-ops… mohamed.boucadair