Re: [OPSAWG] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-15: (with DISCUSS)

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:23:07AM +0200, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> 
> What about maybe renaming the timers and don’t have tcp in the name but explain in the text that these timer are used for tcp but could/should also be used for other connection-oriented protocols…? Would that be an option that could eventually help? E.g. call the "tcp-trans-open-timeout“ just "trans-open-timeout“ and explain that RFC 7857 specifies this for TCP but other implementation for connection-oriented protocols could use the same timer? Just thinking...
> 

I assume renaming is not sufficient. If you insist on generic timers,
then I assume you have to send this document back to the WG to define
semantics of generic timers and how such generic timers map to
different protocols.

> > [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.
> 
> No, that’s exactly the problem. QUIC is a connection-oriented protocol, so it would potentially be possible and desirable to have longer time-outs than you usually have for other UDP traffic. 
>

So here we already hit the first obstacle. QUIC running over UDP,
which means QUIC timers and UDP timers interacting. So the new generic
timers would have a way of expressing that. Perhaps having protocol
specific timers is good enough?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>