Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-02 comments due by NOV 10

["Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[e-mail]>]

I have a couple editorial comments and a question.

Abstract
s/to their closest on-path NAT, Firewall, or other middlebox, …/to their closest on-path PCP aware NAT, Firewall, or other middle box, …

Appendix B.2.
s/first-hop router is also the NAT gateway/first-hop router is also a PCP aware NAT gateway

Appendix B.2 reads, "Since we posit that other network infrastructure does not need (and should not have) any special knowledge of PCP (or its anycast address) this means that to other non-NAT routers, the PCP anycast address will look like any other unicast destination address on the public Internet, and consequently the packet will be forwarded as for any other packet destined to the public Internet, until it reaches a NAT or firewall device that is aware of the PCP anycast address. “

My understanding is that a NAT that is not PCP aware will route the PCP request normally as well. This complicates matters but is not insurmountable. Is that discussed somewhere, in which case a reference should be added?

Cheers,
Charles

From: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, October 27, 2014 at 12:23 PM
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-02 comments due by NOV 10


This email initiates a Working Group Last Call on : draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-02 to conclude on

Monday, November 10th at the PCP WG meeting in Honolulu.  Please send comments to the list.



As a reminder, when responding to a WGLC, what we chairs are looking for is a statement about

document quality (not really about whether the mechanism should move forward).  That is,

state whether you think the document is ready as is, or if not, what issues you see.



Thanks,

-Dave