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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

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