Re: [pcp] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: (with COMMENT)

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 23 October 2015 05:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2491B325E; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 22:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WJggP6zKL_hE; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 22:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF2691B325C; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 22:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A4D1B22C5AF; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 07:45:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.18]) by omfedm06.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 80CCF27C067; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 07:45:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cba:56d0:a732:ef5a%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 23 Oct 2015 07:45:03 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRDR0yNnVo3jKXP0C+1QtIYTz1jp54kHcQ
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 05:45:02 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C85580@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <20151020204235.18192.47356.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C84117@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D0F59781-D06C-495D-97D2-57F1FA2CCDFC@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0F59781-D06C-495D-97D2-57F1FA2CCDFC@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.10.22.212717
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/toNVNrWT7E9gSQhdkvAlH2pQMbA>
Cc: "draft-ietf-pcp-port-set@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pcp-port-set@ietf.org>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>, "pcp-chairs@ietf.org" <pcp-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "rapenno@yahoo.com" <rapenno@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 05:45:09 -0000

Hi Ben,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
> Envoyé : vendredi 23 octobre 2015 00:59
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> Cc : The IESG; draft-ietf-pcp-port-set@ietf.org; pcp@ietf.org;
> rapenno@yahoo.com; pcp-chairs@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi, thanks for the response. Comments inline. I removed sections that do
> not seem to need further discussion.
> 
> On 21 Oct 2015, at 1:51, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
> 
> [...]
> >
> >>
> >> Why might the first internal port  in a response differ from the
> >> requested internal port? Even if the server could not map the entire
> >> range, wouldn't the first internal port still be the same?
> >
> > [Med] This is likely to be the case for most cases, but as indicated
> > in Section 5.2, there may be cases where this is not true. The
> > specification allows for both.
> 
> Ah, I see. I wasn't thinking about the discovery case.
> 
> >
> >>
> >> The statement that the internal and external set sizes will always be
> >> the
> >> same could use some elaboration. I assume this means the set sizes
> >> will
> >> match after mapping, _not_ that the external set size will always
> >> match
> >> the _requested_ set size.
> >
> > [Med] What about?
> >
> > OLD:
> > The two ranges always have the same size (i.e., the Port Set Size
> > returned by the PCP server).
> >
> > NEW:
> > The Internal Port Set and the Assigned External Port Set have the same
> > size.
> 
> I think the issue goes back to the first sentence of the paragraph,
> which is not clear whether we are talking about the Internal Port Set as
> requested, or as actually mapped.
> 
> How about something like:
> 
> OLD:
> The Internal Port Set is defined as being the range of Port Set Size
>     ports starting from the First Internal Port.  The External Port Set
>     is respectively defined as being the range of Port Set Size ports
>     starting from the Assigned External Port.  The two ranges always
> have
>     the same size (i.e., the Port Set Size returned by the PCP server).
> NEW:
> The Internal Port Set is defined as being the range of Port Set Size
>     ports starting from the Internal Port

[Med] The internal port set starts from the "First Intenal Port".

 returned
>     by the PCP server.

[Med] I'm not OK with this mention because the definition is used in the document for both request and response. 

 Similarly, the External Port Set
>     is is the range of Port Set Size ports
>     starting from the Assigned External Port.  The two ranges always
> have
>     the same size.
> 
> [...]

[Med] In order to make it clear the sentence is about a response I updated the text to:

"The Internal Port Set returned in a response and the Assigned External Port Set have the same size."

> 
> > Also, I assume you
> >> use port parity in terms of even/odd parity. It might be useful to
> >> state
> >> that somewhere.
> >
> > [Med] Updated as follows:
> >
> > OLD:
> >
> > "If parity preservation is required, the PCP client MUST set the
> > parity bit (to 1) to ask the PCP server to preserve the port parity."
> >
> > NEW:
> >
> > "If parity preservation is required (i.e., an even port to be mapped
> > to an even port, and an odd port to be mapped to an odd port), the PCP
> > client MUST set the parity bit (to 1) to ask the PCP server to
> > preserve the port parity."
> 
> I think that's helpful--but I also just noticed you have a reference to
> 4787 to explain this in section 4.
> 
> [...]