Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion

Hi Richard,

As I've moved sections 3 & 4 to the end of the document as annexes, I've added a new small section for UPnP with your text. I think this also helps to clarify one of the issues raised by Lee.

I'm working on all this changes with my co-authors, and if we are good with them, we probably will submit the new version in a couple of days or so.

Thanks!

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Richard Patterson <richard@helix.net.nz>
Fecha: miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 11:16
Para: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Asunto: Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion

    Section 4 only briefly touches on UPnP, I'd like to propose that we
    make a recommendation around its behaviour if it is enabled.

    UPnP MAY be enabled on the IPv6 transition CE, for stateless
    mechanisms that forward unsolicited inbound packets through to the CE.
    If UPnP is enabled, the agent MUST reject any port mapping requests
    for ports outside of the range(s) allocated to the IPv6 transition CE.

    UPnP SHOULD be disabled for stateful mechanisms that do not forward
    unsolicited inbound packets to the CE, unless implemented in
    conjunction with a method to control the external port mapping, such
    as IGD-PCP IWF [RFC6970].

    -Richard

    On 25 April 2018 at 01:38, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> On Apr 24, 2018, at 12:13 PM, STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> But that doesn't mean I believe the draft has exactly the right set of features included. My understanding of "adoption" is that it is still possible post-adoption to discuss whether specific features / requirements do or don't belong. If the precise set of features and requirements must be agreed upon prior to adoption, then I would not be in support of adoption. Hopefully we aren't setting the bar that high?
    >
    > I understand "adoption as a working group draft" to mean that the working group has agreed to work on the draft. There are some working groups that seem to confuse "adoption as a work group draft" with "agreement to send it to the IESG"; I don't, but expect conversation in between those two events.
    >
    > That said, I'd like to believe that the draft is pretty close, and that changes that need to be made to it will have text offered by the people that want them. So - keep your cards and letters coming...
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > v6ops mailing list
    > v6ops@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >

    _______________________________________________
    v6ops mailing list
    v6ops@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.