IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com> Thu, 19 July 2012 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@painless-security.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 2F40121F87D3; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.228
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DzSOMyt2duAJ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from permutation-city.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A831C21F87D2; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 06:02:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F27AB203BA; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:03:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id DE6A941F0; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:02:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@painless-security.com>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
References: <5007C972.9020402@neclab.eu> <500802CB.5010908@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:02:33 -0400
In-Reply-To: <500802CB.5010908@viagenie.ca> (Simon Perreault's message of "Thu, 19 Jul 2012 08:51:23 -0400")
Message-ID: <tslsjcnj446.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: pcp@ietf.org, "behave@ietf.org" <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Fwd: Re: Martin Stiemerling's Discuss on draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 19 Jul 2012 13:02:10 -0000

I think that behave-lsn-requirements is far more useful if it names a
specific protocol by name.  By endorcing one of our middlebox protocols,
we encourage interoperability.  If we don't pick a protocol by name, we
don't really promote interoperability. It's not useful if your CGN does
midcom and my client does PCP and I'm your customer.  The assumption
behind LSN-requirements is that the CGN and the CPE are not
controlled/purchased/whatever by the same entity.  So, mandating a
specific protocol seems desirable.

I think that the behave WG is the right place to make that decision.
The IETF as a whole should be able to second guess behave, but we should
need a fairly high bar  for  doing so.

The claim that PCP is the IETF's only protocol in this space does seem a
little bit on the wishful thinking side of things. So, I could
understand if the IESG wanted to ask behave to spend a little more time
on the question.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email