Re: [pcp] draft-ietf-pcp-base-00

[Francis Dupont <[e-mail]>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   If there are suggestions / objections / comments to the above, please
   share them now.  
   
     * 'mandatory' semantic.  I plan to define a PCP option which
       requires the server to map to the requested-external-port (but not
       IP address?), or else return an error.  This is primarily to

=> IMHO there is no reason to not add the (requested-external) IP
address here. This makes the option more useful than for UPnP IGD 1.0
IWF only.

       optimize server operation when some device within the subscriber's
       network is interworking from UPnP IGD to PCP.
   
     * ICMP, for the associated flow, will be opened as a side-effect of
       using PCP to permit inbound TCP/UDP.
   
=> as I explained during the Beijing meeting, this is about the NAT
internals so is more in the scope of BEHAVE. BTW if there is a reference
(it should be :-) I prefer to get only a pointer.

     * If PCP lifetime expires while there is still inside->outside data,
       the mapping is not abruptly terminated.

=> I deeply object: if someone wants to keep the entry (s)he should
simply renew it.

       This is part of the "a PCP mapping is identical to a
       normal mapping" philosophy.
   
=> this philosophy is based on the fact mappings are EIM/EIF but
this fact is not true in the real world, so I don't buy the philosophy
(or its consequences).

Thanks

[e-mail]

PS: have you a plan to publish an updated version before the interim
meeting?