[pcp] Fwd: Re: Martin Stiemerling's Discuss on draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

Behaviers, PCPers,

During IESG review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements, a DISCUSS was 
filed regarding the PCP requirement. Details below.

I think this DISCUSS needs to be discussed. So please discuss.

Please reply to [e-mail].

Thanks,
Simon


-------- Message original --------
Sujet: Re: Martin Stiemerling's Discuss on 
draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Date : Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:46:42 +0200
De : Martin Stiemerling <[e-mail]>
Pour : Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>
Copie à : The IESG <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, 
<[e-mail]>

Hi Simon, all,

On 07/17/2012 11:11 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
> Le 2012-07-17 16:42, Martin Stiemerling a écrit :
>>> Each and every CGN MUST have PCP and MUST follow the constraints. I'll
>>> fix the text in a later revision.
>>
>> Can we mandate a specific protocol to be used for this or can we only
>> mandate that such a type of protocol is being used? I don't see the IETF
>> in the position to mandate this type of protocol for CGNs.
>>
>> There are other protocols out there which might be suitable. Note that I
>> am co-author of some, but this isn't the reason for the question. I do
>> not get any reward if I promote these protocols.
>>
>> It is more:
>> do we need to constrain CGN deployments to a protocol (PCP) which is
>> developed right now, or are we open to existing or future protocols, or
>> whatever folks deploying this deem right?
>>
>> I would propose to change REQ-9 to :
>> REQ-9: A CGN MUST include a middlebox control protocol that allows
>> manipulation of CGN bindings with the following contstraints <list items
>> A and B>
>> REQ-9a: If PCP is used these contstraints MUST be applied in addition to
>> contraints A and B:
>> <list items C and D>
>
> That was discussed in IETF 81 (Québec). Here's the extract from the
> minutes:
>
>            Stuart Cheshire: ietf has one port forwarding protocol, which
>            is PCP, so we should require it by name

There are multiple middlebox control protocols published by the IETF
(standards track and experimental) and I have not seen any call for
consensus on what **the** IETF's middlebox control is, neither I have
seen any RFC that states this.

I do not see that an individual can declare IETF consensus based on his
own opinion.


>
>            Dave Thaler: I agree. PCP doc is in final stages.

Again, an opinion of an individual. Nothing wrong about it, but it does
not state IETF consensus.

>
> There was consensus from the WG. In consequence, the text was changed
> from this (-02):
>
>              A CGN SHOULD support a port forwarding protocol such as the
>              Port Control Protocol [I-D.ietf-pcp-base].
>
> to this (-03):
>
>             A CGN SHOULD include a Port Control Protocol server
>             [I-D.ietf-pcp-base].
>
> (That requirement later became a MUST, but that's orthogonal to what
> protocol we require.)

I do not see that the IETF can mandate what protocols are being used to
control a device. The market will decide!

For instance, the is no MUST required that routers implement BGP. It is
good to do this, but if one decides to go for IS-IS (or whatever) that
is just fine.

Another example, there is also no MUST requirement that routers, or
hosts in general, have to implement SNMP.

However, I can see the immediate need to mandate that a CGN SHOULD/MUST
support a middlebox control protocol that is able to install and
maintain NAT bindings.

   Martin

-- 
[e-mail]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL
Registered in England 283