Re: [pcp] Spencer Dawkins' Discuss on draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi, Med,

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 7:28 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
>
> Thank you for the review.
>
> Your suggested wording works for me. I implemented it in my local copy.
> Thanks.

Thanks, and I'll clear now.

> Cheers,
> Med
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : pcp [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Spencer Dawkins
> > Envoyé : jeudi 9 juillet 2015 14:15
> > À : The IESG
> > Cc : pcp@ietf.org
> > Objet : [pcp] Spencer Dawkins' Discuss on draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08: (with
> > DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >
> > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08: Discuss
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-proxy/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCUSS:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > This should be an easy Discuss to resolve.
> >
> > I was surprised to see
> >
> >    In addition, this goes against the spirit of NAT gateways.  The main
> >    purpose of a NAT gateway is to make multiple downstream client
> >    devices making outgoing TCP connections to appear, from the point of
> >            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >    view of everything upstream of the NAT gateway, to be a single client
> >    device making outgoing TCP connections.  In the same spirit, it makes
> >           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >    sense for a PCP-capable NAT gateway to make multiple downstream
> >    client devices requesting port mappings to appear, from the point of
> >    view of everything upstream of the NAT gateway, to be a single client
> >    device requesting port mappings.
> >
> > limited to TCP connections. Is this intentional?
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6887#section-2.2 certainly lists other
> > transport protocols.
> >
> > Is it correct to say
> >
> >    In addition, this goes against the spirit of NAT gateways.  The main
> >    purpose of a NAT gateway is to make multiple downstream client
> >    devices to appear, from the point of
> >    view of everything upstream of the NAT gateway, to be a single client
> >    device.
> >
> > ?
> >
> > Please note that I'm not objecting to the focus on TCP in this text:
> >
> >    Where this document uses the terms "upstream" and "downstream", the
> >    term "upstream" refers to the direction outbound packets travel
> >    towards the public Internet, and the term "downstream" refers to the
> >    direction inbound packets travel from the public Internet towards
> >    client systems.  Typically when a home user views a web site, their
> >    computer sends an outbound TCP SYN packet upstream towards the public
> >    Internet, and an inbound downstream TCP SYN ACK reply comes back from
> >    the public Internet.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I share Stephen's curiosity in his Discuss, but I'll follow along there
> > (I saw Med responded 15 minutes ago).
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pcp mailing list
> > pcp@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>