[pcp] UPnP interop #28 (new): UPnP/NAT-PMP Interop functionality in base spec or separate specs

"pcp issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org> Tue, 14 December 2010 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pcp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3EDD28C113 for <pcp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:19:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.545
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_SUB_RAND_LETTRS4=0.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rJcbhSrdu1yY for <pcp@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:19:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::2a]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2940028C101 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:19:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <trac@tools.ietf.org>) id 1PSbN1-0002Ed-8A for pcp@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:21:11 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: pcp issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.11.7
Precedence: bulk
Cc: pcp@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.7, by Edgewall Software
X-Trac-Project: pcp
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:21:11 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/28
Message-ID: <046.fbbd11187f5ec1ce2f12aba141f6977f@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 28
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: pcp@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:03:16 -0800
Subject: [pcp] UPnP interop #28 (new): UPnP/NAT-PMP Interop functionality in base spec or separate specs
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:19:30 -0000

#28: UPnP/NAT-PMP Interop functionality in base spec or separate specs

 From http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/current/msg00173.html

    I thought the base PCP document focuses on basic functions; but I'm
    not sure IGD and NAT-PMP IWFs are part of that set.  These functions
    are to be discussed IMHO in dedicated document(s) whenever required.
    I know my position may be seen as biased because I'm author of
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bpw-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking/
    which includes more information than what is in the pcp-base
    document.

    I'm not sure there is a justification for a PCP Server to send a NAT-
    PMP error message instead of returning a PCP Error message with a
    code error set to Unsupported version only for the backward
    compatibility with NAT-PMP.  What a NAT-PMP Client will do when it
    receives that error message, it will stop to send subsequent messages
    to the PCP Server?  Isn't it easier to use a distinct port number for
    PCP?

    With a distinct port number for PCP, there is not conflict between
    NAT-PMP and PCP.

    A NAT-PMP speaker which is upgraded to be PCP-speaker will
    know the PCP dedicated port.

    A NAT-PMP speaker which is not PCP-speaker won't never sent a NAT-PMP
    message to a PCP Server.

    In conclusion:

    o  I suggest IWFs are specified in dedicated documents whenever
       required.

    o  To avoid any interference with NAT-PMP, a dedicated port number to
       be assigned to PCP.

-- 
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  multiple            |       Owner:     
     Type:  task                |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor               |   Milestone:     
Component:  UPnP interop        |     Version:     
 Severity:  Active WG Document  |    Keywords:     
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/28>
pcp <http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/>