IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pcp] Comments on draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-00

"Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com> Fri, 11 October 2013 11:16 UTC

Return-Path: <repenno@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3A921E81D8 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 04:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bEjnu-7ExlYn for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 04:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBCD21E81CF for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 04:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=194885; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1381490142; x=1382699742; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=KeaKULTpsiO64D6MFLiACrcSbfJ+wLHuGDIcK9GGIvg=; b=aXpe2pyXiz6vHi+eeLHoRGAtp/iWnbK2sMTBits9YJlt8pRm1ZSj/xhf dA/M/xCZ5t8gnafu4cQ5LHHZODX0bkSlO4VExcA3XfBZlGbAvKozsKZnn CIcPrYNoB5j76fWp9tIIOVqSpf3Ku1Kyk8QxPhC/Z1kzgnWytipUf7jyQ 0=;
X-Files: draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-00-repenno.pdf : 141297
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkYFAIfdV1KtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABZgweBCsFNgScWbQeCJwEERUYBKiYYGCUCBBsGh3iZKaFUjxY4gx+BBAOQK5lcgySCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.90,1079,1371081600"; d="pdf'?scan'208"; a="270910059"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Oct 2013 11:15:40 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9BBFes9016144 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <pcp@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:15:40 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.27]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 06:15:40 -0500
From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <repenno@cisco.com>
To: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-00
Thread-Index: AQHOxnM3cE0GfrO1FEuZq+aBikbnCg==
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:15:39 +0000
Message-ID: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040B7320E5@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <913383AAA69FF945B8F946018B75898A190787CD@xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.21.126.39]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06040B7320E5xmbrcdx04ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [pcp] Comments on draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-00
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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 Oct 2013 11:16:00 -0000

I reviewed this draft for a possible WGLC but I do not think it is ready.
My summary is that this draft has lots of text related to detection of PCP
unaware NAT/FW using STUN which IMO belong in a separate draft, or some
other document since it is generic text. Maybe the WG sees value in having
a separate document that talks exclusively about detection of PCP unaware
FWs.

This draft could just say "assuming all NAT/FW in the path are PCP
aware..." and take it from there since the goal is optimizing keep-alive
and not standardizing detection mechanisms.

Removing all detection text would make this draft quite short and easier
to understand its purpose.

Thanks,

Reinaldo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email