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

[<[e-mail]>]

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