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

I agree with Martin's remarks.

On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:

> Behaviers, PCPers,
> 
> During IESG review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements, a DISCUSS was filed regarding the PCP requirement. Details below.
> 
> I think this DISCUSS needs to be discussed. So please discuss.
> 
> Please reply to behave@ietf.org.
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon
> 
> 
> -------- Message original --------
> Sujet: Re: Martin Stiemerling's Discuss on draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> Date : Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:46:42 +0200
> De : Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>
> Pour : Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
> Copie à : The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, <behave-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements@tools.ietf.org>
> 
> Hi Simon, all,
> 
> On 07/17/2012 11:11 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
>> Le 2012-07-17 16:42, Martin Stiemerling a écrit :
>>>> Each and every CGN MUST have PCP and MUST follow the constraints. I'll
>>>> fix the text in a later revision.
>>> 
>>> Can we mandate a specific protocol to be used for this or can we only
>>> mandate that such a type of protocol is being used? I don't see the IETF
>>> in the position to mandate this type of protocol for CGNs.
>>> 
>>> There are other protocols out there which might be suitable. Note that I
>>> am co-author of some, but this isn't the reason for the question. I do
>>> not get any reward if I promote these protocols.
>>> 
>>> It is more:
>>> do we need to constrain CGN deployments to a protocol (PCP) which is
>>> developed right now, or are we open to existing or future protocols, or
>>> whatever folks deploying this deem right?
>>> 
>>> I would propose to change REQ-9 to :
>>> REQ-9: A CGN MUST include a middlebox control protocol that allows
>>> manipulation of CGN bindings with the following contstraints <list items
>>> A and B>
>>> REQ-9a: If PCP is used these contstraints MUST be applied in addition to
>>> contraints A and B:
>>> <list items C and D>
>> 
>> That was discussed in IETF 81 (Québec). Here's the extract from the
>> minutes:
>> 
>>           Stuart Cheshire: ietf has one port forwarding protocol, which
>>           is PCP, so we should require it by name
> 
> There are multiple middlebox control protocols published by the IETF
> (standards track and experimental) and I have not seen any call for
> consensus on what **the** IETF's middlebox control is, neither I have
> seen any RFC that states this.
> 
> I do not see that an individual can declare IETF consensus based on his
> own opinion.
> 
> 
>> 
>>           Dave Thaler: I agree. PCP doc is in final stages.
> 
> Again, an opinion of an individual. Nothing wrong about it, but it does
> not state IETF consensus.
> 
>> 
>> There was consensus from the WG. In consequence, the text was changed
>> from this (-02):
>> 
>>             A CGN SHOULD support a port forwarding protocol such as the
>>             Port Control Protocol [I-D.ietf-pcp-base].
>> 
>> to this (-03):
>> 
>>            A CGN SHOULD include a Port Control Protocol server
>>            [I-D.ietf-pcp-base].
>> 
>> (That requirement later became a MUST, but that's orthogonal to what
>> protocol we require.)
> 
> I do not see that the IETF can mandate what protocols are being used to
> control a device. The market will decide!
> 
> For instance, the is no MUST required that routers implement BGP. It is
> good to do this, but if one decides to go for IS-IS (or whatever) that
> is just fine.
> 
> Another example, there is also no MUST requirement that routers, or
> hosts in general, have to implement SNMP.
> 
> However, I can see the immediate need to mandate that a CGN SHOULD/MUST
> support a middlebox control protocol that is able to install and
> maintain NAT bindings.
> 
>  Martin
> 
> -- 
> martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu
> 
> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited
> Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL
> Registered in England 283
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> pcp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp