IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pcp] I-D.ietf-pcp-base needs UNSAF Consideration, c.f. RFC 3424

james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> Mon, 13 August 2012 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jhw@apple.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B87221F8516 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:33:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6+yc9GFf5N+q for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out.apple.com (bramley.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2BF21F84E4 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Received: from relay14.apple.com ([17.128.113.52]) by mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-23.01 (7.0.4.23.0) 64bit (built Aug 10 2011)) with ESMTPS id <0M8P00CJ6QER3DA9@mail-out.apple.com> for pcp@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11807134-b7f866d000002583-1d-502972a23402
Received: from fenugreek.apple.com (fenugreek.apple.com [17.128.115.97]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (RC4-MD5/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id B0.81.09603.2A279205; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kallisti.apple.com ([17.193.13.64]) by fenugreek.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01 (7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTPSA id <0M8P008SYQJMP220@fenugreek.apple.com> for pcp@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
Message-id: <C6EC0D3D-B90F-42AF-B647-C161AA48A24B@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:33:22 -0700
To: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1485)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpgluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IRbChO1F1UpBlgsGa2pcXkY79ZHRg9liz5 yRTAGMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVsXz7NLaCDWwV8+b/ZG9g7GLtYuTgkBAwkdix2LiLkRPIFJO4 cG89WxcjF4eQwAwmibbbF6GcWUwSy698ZgapYhNQkfh2+S4TiM0soCWxfudxKFtb4sm7C2BD hQWcJf4uDAYJ8wrYSPQ+3ssOEmYRUJXomG8HEhYRUJQ4sO0GO0SJHtDed4wQN8hKfD98nm0C I+8sJAtmIVkwC0nLAkbmVYyCRak5iZWGJnqJBQU5qXrJ+bmbGMHhUmiyg/HgT/5DjAIcjEo8 vA7mmgFCrIllxZW5hxglOJiVRHh1MoFCvCmJlVWpRfnxRaU5qcWHGKU5WJTEeXt3KAUICaQn lqRmp6YWpBbBZJk4OKUaGHuznW9V/vzu5ts09+NtEynJ40FLT7y6mvVWVE9m1pG6bXmtSed+ ibtZnM9MWej+ivOCzu1Du7UW/dx7fdmc/pgJv0J/9OeqnJx4ZMrsvveLMl9mayZrcChnNp7t XfQ0ao/9+z9Gz+6l6l8sie5I4wjYk7I75ccEL7vy+V97rTYa1hqX75h0YIISS3FGoqEWc1Fx IgCvsGwMEwIAAA==
Subject: [pcp] I-D.ietf-pcp-base needs UNSAF Consideration, c.f. RFC 3424
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:33:25 -0000

everyone--

In every usage scenario other than the RFC 6092 IPv6 Simple Security one, Port Control Protocol (PCP) is an UNSAF system, according to the terminology in RFC 3424.

The predecessor specification to the PCP Base draft, the NAT Port Mapping Protocol [I-D.cheshire-nat-pmp], has three pages of UNSAF Considerations in Section 4, and I don't understand why the PCP Base draft doesn't contain a similar section.

Was this an oversight, or is it a deliberate omission?  Was there a discussion on the list leading up to a working group decision to omit the UNSAF Considerations section from the draft?  If so, then I would like to review that discussion for my own personal edification.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, core os networking

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email