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

Hi Spencer, 

Thank you for the review. 

Your suggested wording works for me. I implemented it in my local copy. Thanks.

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