Re: [pcp] New Version Notification for draft-ripke-pcp-tunnel-id-option-01.txt

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 11 July 2014 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1CF1B2908 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O_NjsA74gIR0 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02EB01B28F6 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 07:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 758BD324236; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:45:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.55]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 56DA135C05A; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:45:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([169.254.2.67]) by OPEXCLILH03.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([10.114.31.55]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Fri, 11 Jul 2014 16:45:28 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Andreas Ripke <Andreas.Ripke@neclab.eu>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-ripke-pcp-tunnel-id-option-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHPl3Ond1s//Hsjp0CcLYDTq0HzY5uPv3hAgAezYcCAAA2OgIAAU4rggAMmp6CAAAPKEA==
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:45:27 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933003175D@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <20140704103500.20587.59638.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2D2FFE4726FAF74285C45D69FDC30E798D60089F@DAPHNIS.office.hd> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933002F541@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <2D2FFE4726FAF74285C45D69FDC30E798D602C81@Hydra.office.hd> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933002F965@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <2D2FFE4726FAF74285C45D69FDC30E798D607FF9@Hydra.office.hd>
In-Reply-To: <2D2FFE4726FAF74285C45D69FDC30E798D607FF9@Hydra.office.hd>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.6.25.81224
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/F7fgh5TnhM6KM0m9_n-YWftheQE
Subject: Re: [pcp] New Version Notification for draft-ripke-pcp-tunnel-id-option-01.txt
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:45:32 -0000

Hi Andreas,

I'm curious to see how this can work with legacy CPEs.

Looking forward to reading an updated version of the draft.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Andreas Ripke [mailto:Andreas.Ripke@neclab.eu]
>Envoyé : vendredi 11 juillet 2014 16:42
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; pcp@ietf.org
>Objet : RE: New Version Notification for draft-ripke-pcp-tunnel-id-option-
>01.txt
>
>Hi Med,
>
>Thanks for the hint on UPnP relay. This might not be necessary.
>Apparently, we have to describe the scenario in more detail.
>
>Best,
>
>Andreas
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
>> [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 4:27 PM
>> To: Andreas Ripke; pcp@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-ripke-pcp-tunnel-id-
>option-
>> 01.txt
>>
>> Re-,
>>
>> Please see inline.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Med
>>
>> >-----Message d'origine-----
>> >De : Andreas Ripke [mailto:Andreas.Ripke@neclab.eu] Envoyé : mercredi 9
>> >juillet 2014 12:02 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; pcp@ietf.org Objet :
>> >RE: New Version Notification for draft-ripke-pcp-tunnel-id-option-
>> >01.txt
>> >
>> >Hi Med,
>> >
>> >Thanks for your comments.
>> >
>> >Our scenario is a supplement to situations when PCP is not yet on hand
>> >in the subscriber realm.
>> >The carrier IWF is offered as a service to the subscribers.
>> >It does not prevent subscribers to directly use PCP to control ports on
>> >the CGN.
>>
>> [Med] But how the CPE will decide to leak UPnP IGD outside the LAN?
>> Shouldn't this require an upgrade of the CPE to support some "kind" of
>UPnP
>> IGD relay?
>>
>> >
>> >And thanks for your pointer to your pcp-sfc draft.
>> >It looks like the PCP TUNNEL_ID option aligns to this direction of an
>> >extension proposal.
>> >
>> >The decision we called the new option TUNNEL_ID was driven by the given
>> >scenario.
>> >Yes, it might be an idea to change and generalize the option name to ID
>> >instead of TUNNEL_ID.
>>
>> [Med] Great!
>>
>> >
>> >Best,
>> >
>> >Andreas
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
>> >> [mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com]
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 10:42 AM
>> >> To: Andreas Ripke; pcp@ietf.org
>> >> Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-ripke-pcp-tunnel-id-
>> >option-
>> >> 01.txt
>> >>
>> >> Hi Andreas,
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for sharing this updated version of the document.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure about the carrier-hosted IWF because one of the
>> >> motivations for PCP to avoid overloading the carrier network with a
>> chatty protocol.
>> >>
>> >> FWIW, I have identified in this document as case that require an
>> >> identification information that cannot be included in a THIRD_PARTY
>> >option:
>> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-sfc-classifier-control-
>00
>> >> "   o  Extended THIRD_PARTY option to include a L2 identifier (e.g.,
>MAC
>> >>       address), an opaque subscriber-identifier, an IMSI, etc."
>> >>
>> >> I suggest you change TUNNEL_ID to something that won't mislead the
>> >> reader that a tunneling technique is always in place when this option
>> >> is
>> >in
>> >> use.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Med
>> >>
>> >> >-----Message d'origine-----
>> >> >De : pcp [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Andreas Ripke
>> >> >Envoyé : vendredi 4 juillet 2014 13:05 À : pcp@ietf.org Objet :
>> >> >[pcp]
>> >> >FW: New Version Notification for draft-ripke-pcp-tunnel-id-
>> >> >option-01.txt
>> >> >
>> >> >Dear all,
>> >> >
>> >> >Thank you for all the feedback we received at the last meeting on
>> >> >the TUNNEL_ID option. This was very helpful. We have updated our
>> >> >draft accordingly and aligned our use case with use cases from
>> >> >existing PCP drafts/RFCs. Particularly we moved the focus from a
>> >> >rather static web portal scenario to a more dynamic UPnP Interworking
>> scenario.
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ripke-pcp-tunnel-id-option
>> >> >-01
>> >> >.txt
>> >> >
>> >> >Please have a look at the draft and give us your feedback.
>> >> >
>> >> >Best regards,
>> >> >
>> >> >Andreas
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >NEC Europe Ltd | Registered Office: Athene, Odyssey Business Park,
>> >> >West End Road, London, HA4 6QE, GB | Registered in England 2832014
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >A new version of I-D, draft-ripke-pcp-tunnel-id-option-01.txt
>> >> >has been successfully submitted by Andreas Ripke and posted to the
>> >> >IETF repository.
>> >> >
>> >> >Name:		draft-ripke-pcp-tunnel-id-option
>> >> >Revision:	01
>> >> >Title:		PCP Tunnel-ID Option
>> >> >Document date:	2014-07-03
>> >> >Group:		Individual Submission
>> >> >Pages:		10
>> >> >URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ripke-pcp-
>> >tunnel-
>> >> >id-option-01.txt
>> >> >Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ripke-pcp-
>tunnel-
>> >id-
>> >> >option/
>> >> >Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ripke-pcp-tunnel-id-
>> >> >option-01
>> >> >Diff:           http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ripke-pcp-
>tunnel-
>> >id-
>> >> >option-01
>> >> >
>> >> >Abstract:
>> >> >   This document describes a new Port Control Protocol (PCP) option
>> >> >   called TUNNEL_ID.  It serves for identifying a Third Party in
>> >> >   addition to the means that PCP's THIRD_PARTY option already
>provides
>> >> >   for that purpose.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>> >> >submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>> >> >tools.ietf.org.
>> >> >
>> >> >The IETF Secretariat
>> >> >
>> >> >_______________________________________________
>> >> >pcp mailing list
>> >> >pcp@ietf.org
>> >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp