Re: [pcp] #76 (proxy): Dave Thaler's comments on draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-06

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,

Thank you for the review. 

I integrated almost all of your comments except the one about Third Party ID Option because IMHO it does not address the same problem as zone_id. Anyway, zone_id is provided as an example, so we don't need to ne exhaustive here. 

FWIW, the diff is available here:           https:https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-07  

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : pcp [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de pcp issue tracker
> Envoyé : mardi 28 avril 2015 23:36
> À : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc : [e-mail]
> Objet : [pcp] #76 (proxy): Dave Thaler's comments on draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-
> 06
> 
> #76: Dave Thaler's comments on draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-06
> 
>  Section 1.1:
>  > likely to be more than on NAT on the path between client machines and
> 
>  s/more than on/more than one/
> 
>  Section 1.2:
>  Is it worth noting that the pcp-anycast draft is an alternate solution to
>  this same use case?
> 
>  Section 3.2:
>  This section's wording is a bit confusing.   Section 1 explained the
>  reference
>  model of back-to-back client and server.  So termination would occur when
>  either
>  a) the request gets to a server that does not have the PCP proxy
>  functional element, or
>  b) it gets to a PCP proxy whose PCP client has no PCP servers reachable
>  (e.g. none configured and no default routers that respond to PCP) and
> thus
>  has nothing to forward to.
>  No?
> 
>  The two examples currently in 3.2 are merely ways a NAT gateway (but a
> PCP
>  proxy could be a firewall or something other than a NAT...) could choose
>  to enable or disable a PCP proxy functional element and hence
>  toggle between a and b above.   But the PCP speaker might not be a NAT
>  gateway, or it might not implement a PCP proxy at all, or it might
>  implement one but not be "configured to know it's the outermost" but
>  rather use rule b above.
>  So I think section 3.2 needs further elaboration as noted above.
> 
>  Section 3.6:
>  I think the reference to Zone ID [I-D.penno-pcp-zones] should probably
>  reference the Third Party ID Option [I-D.ietf-pcp-third-party-id-option].
> 
>  Section 5:
>  > Section 3.3 specifies the cases where a THIRD_PARTY option is inserted
>  > the PCP Proxy.  In those cases, means to prevent a malicious
> 
>  s/inserted/inserted by/
> 
>  > THIRD_PARTY option MUST NOT be enabled unless the network on which
> 
>  Grammar: s/option/options/
> 
>  >   dropped (or in the case of an unknown Option which is not mandatory-
>  >   to-process the Option be removed) if it is not compatible with
> 
>  s/Option be/Option SHOULD be/
> 
> --
> -------------------------------------+------------------------------------
> -
>  Reporter:  [e-mail]    |      Owner:  draft-ietf-pcp-
>      Type:  defect                   |  [e-mail]
>  Priority:  minor                    |     Status:  new
> Component:  proxy                    |  Milestone:  milestone1
>  Severity:  Waiting for Shepherd     |    Version:  1.0
>   Writeup                            |   Keywords:
> -------------------------------------+------------------------------------
> -
> 
> Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/76>
> pcp <http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp