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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 09 July 2014 14:27 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 B4DEB1A0AB8 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 07:27:16 -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 iV4OFPiAS_Y6 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 07:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias245.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.245]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A611C1A0ABE for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 07:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfeda06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.199]) by omfeda14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 51D1D2AC685; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 16:27:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.56]) by omfeda06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 32795C8061; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 16:27:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([169.254.2.67]) by OPEXCLILH04.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([10.114.31.56]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 16:27:10 +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//Hsjp0CcLYDTq0HzY5uPv3hAgAezYcCAAA2OgIAAU4rg
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 14:27:09 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933002F965@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>
In-Reply-To: <2D2FFE4726FAF74285C45D69FDC30E798D602C81@Hydra.office.hd>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.3]
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: 2014.7.9.34819
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/KZwpQPCUp9w6Q1THaqQji6VdBnA
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: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 14:27:16 -0000

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