Re: [pcp] pcp-base-19

Hi all,
Some comments on pcp-base-19:

1. P17, section 6.3 / P18, section 6.4
"If the PCP server does not implement this Option, ..."
"UNSUPP_OPTION: Unsupported Option.  This error only occurs if the Option is in the mandatory-to-process range."

Why do we set this restriction "only occurs if the Option is in the mandatory-to-process range."?
I think UNSUPP_OPTION error code is better than MALFORMED_OPTION if there is an unsupported optional Option. 

2. P28, section 9 
"It is REQUIRED that the PCP-controlled device assign the same
external IP address to PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings and to
implicit dynamic mappings for a given Internal Address. In the absence 
of a PCP option indicating otherwise, it is REQUIRED that all
PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings be assigned the same external
IP address."

How about replace "In the absence of a PCP option indicating otherwise, it is REQUIRED that all PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings be assigned the same external IP address." 
with 
"It is indicated by the PCP client that PCP-created explicit dynamic 
mappings be assigned the same external IP address, unless there are 
explicit reasons of not doing so, e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-pcp-zones-00"?

Because "It is REQUIRED that the PCP" give the requirement from the server's point of view, I think we should also give the requirement from the client's point of view. 
This is more or less what Dan suggested before, perhaps an oversight.

3. P38, section 10.2 
"the PCP server may not be able grant the suggested External IP Address and Port"

typo? be able to?  

4. P57, section 12.3
"the value of the Prefix Length pertains only to to the IPv4 portion of the address." 

typo, duplicate "to"

5. P59, section 13.1.1
"In many networking APIs is is difficult or	impossible to have two independent clients listening for both unicasts and multicasts on the same port at the same time.  For this reason, two ports are used."

typo, duplicate "is"

6. P61, section 13.1.4 Processing a PEER Response

the title "PEER Response", 

guess it should be "ANNOUNCE"

"then for all PCP mappings it made at that server address the client should issue new PCP requests to to recreate any lost mapping state. "

typo, duplicate "to"

Happy holidays,
Tina

-----Original Message-----
From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dan Wing
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 5:21 PM
To: 'PCP'
Subject: [pcp] pcp-base-19

Major changes in -19 are summarized in the Changes section, and
are:

   o  Described race condition with MAP containing PREFER_FAILURE and
      Mapping Update.

   o  Added state machine (Section 14.5).

   o  Fully integrated Rapid Recovery, with a separate Opcode having its
      own processing description.

   o  Clarified that due to Mapping Update, a single MAP or PEER request
      can receive multiple responses, each updating the previous
      request, and that the PCP client needs to handle MAP updates or
      PEER updates accordingly.

Side-by-side diffs,
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-base-19.txt

-d

_______________________________________________
pcp mailing list
pcp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp