Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-base-00
Tina Tsou <tena@huawei.com> Tue, 07 December 2010 00:37 UTC
Return-Path: <tena@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C194B3A68DC for <pcp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:37:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PoVGZV2O2MC8 for <pcp@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:37:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usaga04-in.huawei.com (usaga04-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.180]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADCDC3A68A2 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:37:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (usaga04-in [172.18.4.101]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LD1003YH8GCAQ@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for pcp@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:38:37 -0600 (CST)
Received: from TingZousc1 ([10.212.246.33]) by usaga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LD100KIV8GA3M@usaga04-in.huawei.com> for pcp@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:38:36 -0600 (CST)
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:38:38 -0800
From: Tina Tsou <tena@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <C922B8CD.326B7%rpenno@juniper.net>
To: pcp@ietf.org
Message-id: <019201cb95a7$181dbbf0$485933d0$@com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-language: en-us
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: AcuT/qHeu+DnMCgJSBKyXclunV/sWQBovCevAADVPeA=
References: <201012042200.oB4M078R007727@givry.fdupont.fr> <C922B8CD.326B7%rpenno@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-base-00
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:37:14 -0000
I reviewed the draft-ietf-pcp-base-00. Comments are inline. Best Regards, Tina TSOU http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html -----Original Message----- From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dan Wing Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:25 PM To: pcp@ietf.org Subject: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-base-00 I just posted draft-ietf-pcp-base-00, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-00, which has very small changes from draft-wing-pcp-base-01, such as removing most text discussing using same port as NAT-PMP (I didn't fix all occurrences), Side-by-side diffs between them are at: http://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wing-pcp- base-01.txt&url2=http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pcp-base-00.txt or http://tinyurl.com/2byejy3 Changes I intend to make for -01 include the following, which are my understanding of the consensus from the face-to-face meeting at IETF79, mostly from my presentation at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/pcp-2.pdf and chair's presentation at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/pcp-4.pdf If there are suggestions / objections / comments to the above, please share them now. * 'mandatory' semantic. I plan to define a PCP option which requires the server to map to the requested-external-port (but not IP address?), or else return an error. This is primarily to optimize server operation when some device within the subscriber's network is interworking from UPnP IGD to PCP. [Tina: I understand that UPnP IGD and NAT-PMP don't support requested external IP, so the request packet from the user should not carry the external IP. But I don't quite understand why to define a new option. It seems to me the old option can work.] * ICMP, for the associated flow, will be opened as a side-effect of using PCP to permit inbound TCP/UDP. * defer firewall until later, or to a separate document. (I would like to discuss this on the list.) * If PCP lifetime expires while there is still inside->outside data, the mapping is not abruptly terminated. Instead, it continues to live on. This is part of the "a PCP mapping is identical to a normal mapping" philosophy. * multihoming is deferred to later, or to another document * will not add support to request multiple ports [Tina: I did not see related discussion. Why? I'm curious to know how you consider it.] * Add EVEN_PLUS_ONE functionality, primarily for RTP+RTCP. This will be done with a PCP option ("IE"; see below for reasons why I am considering renaming "IE" to "Option"). * PCP server discovery: I don't recall a meaningful consensus. We should discuss on the list. * PCP encapsulation for DS-Lite (over IPv6 versus over UDP): I don't recall a meaningful consensus. We should discuss on the list. non-technical editing: * incorporate feedback (against draft-wing-pcp-base-01) received from Francis Dupont, Dave Thaler, and Mohamed Boucadair. * solidifying request/response behavior for client and server, to more clearly separate the behavior from the currently-defined OpCodes. This will make it clearer how new OpCodes can be defined, and help client and server implementations not get tied into the operation of the currently-defined OpCodes. * rename IE (Informational Elements) to Options. This is because they are not purely informational -- they change behavior. DHCP, IP, and TCP all use "options", so this term seems a reasonably generic and also well-understood. -d _______________________________________________ pcp mailing list pcp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
- [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-base-00 Dan Wing
- Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-base-00 Dave Thaler
- Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-base-00 Francis Dupont
- Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-base-00 Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-base-00 Tina Tsou
- Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-base-00 Dan Wing
- Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-base-00 Francis Dupont