Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-15: (with DISCUSS)
"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 24 September 2018 09:29 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
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 6FC64130E7B for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 02:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=ietf@kuehlewind.net header.d=kuehlewind.net
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 zg8oIMMmBozx for <opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 02:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C213130E76 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Sep 2018 02:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kuehlewind.net; b=hTIG92a6J6wmfe3NZ6eCE6C0wSae1iWD04H2eUBTtaPBVohWpYoayyBbfqyOET/Bz4iTKvMeWKOrosi0gzStFVK/FnttNHF991dGQTZukGP/hzS8yOToe7+M4DJqS/6UJ6MMfCg4vkUzAQt03TlcnBCSkZ6tYZ+yjRZ1F2u+G88=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-PPP-Message-ID:X-PPP-Vhost;
Received: (qmail 23498 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2018 11:29:07 +0200
Received: from mue-88-130-61-096.dsl.tropolys.de (HELO ?192.168.178.24?) (88.130.61.96) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 24 Sep 2018 11:29:07 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DFE5C3E@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:29:06 +0200
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EB4FE187-29CE-4EB9-92AF-CE755DB72958@kuehlewind.net>
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>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-PPP-Message-ID: <20180924092907.23490.28154@lvps83-169-45-111.dedicated.hosteurope.de>
X-PPP-Vhost: kuehlewind.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/PI3ctPZpJElbY8Uw410WgIq6ByU>
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 09:29:13 -0000
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