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

[<[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
>Envoyé : vendredi 11 juillet 2014 16:42
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; [e-mail]
>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: [e-mail]
>> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 4:27 PM
>> To: Andreas Ripke; [e-mail]
>> 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:[e-mail]] Envoyé : mercredi 9
>> >juillet 2014 12:02 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; [e-mail] 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: [e-mail]
>> >> [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 10:42 AM
>> >> To: Andreas Ripke; [e-mail]
>> >> 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:[e-mail]] De la part de Andreas Ripke
>> >> >Envoyé : vendredi 4 juillet 2014 13:05 À : [e-mail] 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
>> >> >[e-mail]
>> >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp