Re: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13

Looks good.

On 7/27/11 6:24 AM, "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Reinaldo Penno [mailto:rpenno@juniper.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:52 AM
>> To: Dan Wing; 'Tina TSOU'; pcp@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
>> 
>> I actually disagree with this requirement. I would like to see it
>> relaxed
>> since for various reasons a client might actually wants certain
>> explicit
>> mappings bound to different public Ips.
>> 
>> The reasons are discussed in:
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-pcp-zones-00
> 
> Then how about:
> 
>    In the
>    absence of a PCP option indicating otherwise, it is
>    REQUIRED that PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings be assigned
>    the same external IP address
> 
> -d
> 
> 
>> 
>> On 7/26/11 7:07 AM, "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Tina TSOU [mailto:Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 9:55 AM
>>>> To: Dan Wing; pcp@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
>>>> 
>>>> Dan,
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> It is what we agreed on the texts in the mailing list before:
>>>> "If there is already an active explicit dynamic mapping,
>>>>   it will be mapped to a certain external IP address.
>>>>   When the PCP client makes another explicit dynamic mapping,
>>>>   it SHOULD place the external IP address of the existing
>>>>   mapping into the Requested External Address of the MAP
>>>>   request.  By doing this, all of the PCP client's explicit
>>>>   dynamic mappings will be on the same external address."
>>> 
>>> That's saying something different -- that is saying that
>>> all PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings have to be on
>>> the same external address.
>>> 
>>> I added a second sentence, so it now reads:
>>> 
>>>       It is REQUIRED that the PCP-controlled device assign the same
>>>       external IP address to PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings
>> and
>>>       to implicit dynamic mappings for a given Internal Host.  It is
>>> ...............................................................^^^^^
>>>       also REQUIRED that PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings be
>>> ......^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>       assigned the same external IP address.
>>> ......^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> We should specify the action of the PCP client.
>>> 
>>> -d
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Tina TSOU
>>>> http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 5:01 PM
>>>> To: Tina TSOU; pcp@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: RE: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of
>>>>> Tina Zouting
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 8:32 PM
>>>>> To: pcp@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> It seems that http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/24,
>> "PCP
>>>>> mappings same public IP address as dynamic mappings" is not
>> reflected
>>>>> in the latest version.
>>>>> Sorry for the late feedback.
>>>> 
>>>> I am not online at the moment, so I can't read ticket #24.
>>>> 
>>>> Section 7 says:
>>>>    It is REQUIRED that the PCP-controlled device assign the same
>>>>    external IP address to PCP-created explicit dynamic mappings and
>> to
>>>>    implicit dynamic mappings for a given Internal Host.
>>>> 
>>>> Is that ok?
>>>> 
>>>> -d
>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>>>> Alain Durand
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:34 PM
>>>>> To: pcp@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13
>>>>> 
>>>>> draft-ietf-pcp-base-13 has been published to address the comments
>>>>> received during wg last call on the -12 revision. We would like to
>>>>> start a 1-week working group last call on this new revision.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The PCP wg chairs, Alain & Dave.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 5, 2011, at 11:19 PM, "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> draft-ietf-pcp-base-13 was just posted.  Changes are in
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-13#appendix-B.1,
>> and
>>>>> copied
>>>>>> below.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Side-by-side diffs between -12 and -13 are at:
>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-base-13.txt
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This should resolve all comments from -12's WGLC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -d
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   o  All addresses are 128 bits.  IPv4 addresses are represented
>> by
>>>>>>      IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (::FFFF/96)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   o  PCP request header now includes PCP client's port (in
>> addition
>>>>> to
>>>>>>      the client's IP address, which was in -12).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   o  new ADDRESS_MISMATCH error.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   o  removed PROCESSING_ERROR error, which was too similar to
>>>>>>      MALFORMED_REQUEST.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   o  Tweaked text describing how PCP client deals with multiple
>> PCP
>>>>>>      server addresses (Section 6.1)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   o  clarified that when overloaded, the server can send
>>>>>>      SERVER_OVERLOADED (and drop requests) or simply drop
>> requests.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   o  Clarified how PCP client chooses MAP4 or MAP6, depending on
>>>> the
>>>>>>      presence of its own IPv6 or IPv4 interfaces (Section 7).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   o  compliant PCP server MUST support MAPx and PEERx, SHOULD
>>>> support
>>>>>>      ability to disable support.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   o  clarified that MAP-created mappings have no filtering, and
>>>> PEER-
>>>>>>      created mappings have whatever filtering and mapping behavior
>>>> is
>>>>>>      normal for that particular NAT / firewall.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   o  Integrated WGLC feedback (small changes to abstract,
>>>>> definitions,
>>>>>>      and small edits throughout the document)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   o  allow new Options to be defined with a specification (rather
>>>>> than
>>>>>>      standards action)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> pcp mailing list
>>>>>> pcp@ietf.org
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> pcp mailing list
>>>>> pcp@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> pcp mailing list
>>>>> pcp@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pcp mailing list
>>> pcp@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> 