Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Thu, 03 January 2013 01:39 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@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 A839121F8889 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 17:39:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1HVbDoiw9mih for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 17:39:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F87C21F881A for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 17:39:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2066; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1357177144; x=1358386744; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k9ggsiUn4ITxILkQPYmyRxYJfu67u2CyuAEbFtd+mkI=; b=YZiKAkhoHTO8ejrpoSWnwwuoB/1dFYwhpJMN99+WPtVv9ItT2VD0rqTB Y84PeN0ZacxE9196yGw8o7uaHUV/M+dtLnMsjw+UkNZDK7tupCjnNvBSQ 9QmS3VVJRqG/suJ98j7nAPxRjjoIjjzMWq/yZxgEf3VH4i1VeQ+ADTXRt w=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,400,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="64740499"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jan 2013 01:39:03 +0000
Received: from DWINGWS01 (sjc-vpn7-1725.cisco.com [10.21.150.189]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r031d38j013774; Thu, 3 Jan 2013 01:39:03 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'Reinaldo Penno (repenno)'" <repenno@cisco.com>, pcp@ietf.org
References: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06041E9D32@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06041E9D48@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <45A697A8FFD7CF48BCF2BE7E106F06041E9D48@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2013 17:39:03 -0800
Message-ID: <01ab01cde953$1cbfed70$563fc850$@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJCt95bsnCw7XkdTvDDrAOqjgdTl5dNM8YA
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09
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: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 01:39:04 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Reinaldo Penno (repenno)
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 3:35 PM
> To: pcp@ietf.org
> Subject: [pcp] WG Call for Adoption: draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This email starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting
> 
>      Title     : Using PCP To Coordinate Between the CGN and Home
> Gateway
>      Author(s) : Q. Sun et al
>      Filename  : draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09.txt
>      URL       : http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-09.txt
> 
> Please read the current revision and state you opinion either for or
> against adoption (and with reasoning why) in the mailing list.

The Applicability section, title, and section 2 need to be clarified 
if PCP-NATCOORD works with PRR, works with CGN (as defined by 
draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements), or only works with 
draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite.  Some of the Applicability section
is 
actually in section 2, where section 2 says:

   ... This mechanism can be applied for lightweight 4over6
   [I-D.cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite] in port-set allocation
   process.  It can also be applied to stateless PCP-controlled device,
   in which the Internal address, External address and Port set is
   determined algorithmically.

Yet, section 6 says "Normally, the PCP server for MAP_PORT_SET will 
not run NAT" which conflicts with the document's own title ("Using
PCP To Coordinate Between the CGN and Home Gateway").



Nit: Figure 2 shows a 24 bit Reserved field, but the description
says it is 16 bits.  Also, Figure 2 has a cut/paste mistake
with Suggested Port Set Index (should be Assigned Port Set Index).



What is the status of draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite in
SOFTWIRE?

-d


> The call for adoption ends 16th January 2013.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp