[v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 27 January 2012 19:59 UTC
Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5F4821F85D2; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:59:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.279, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 9fZfDtM9zs4y; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:59:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059A621F85BD; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:59:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=2191; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1327694360; x=1328903960; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=4iP71SayWxHTJ7P6QfTflKS0Rix2A/csyPPvgdKiMVE=; b=eIUSJMu4LhNj99AS+7DhdZ3Mu5BphSX4NSetX7U0sAFl8xeS8h3dqfkE LA/axy4YVvJGFNIgCtiVpxYrVmcWbY7x85CT8LkJ8QQ+Oz7m1tK+86IP0 2shIR/by4rP6zQJEKzypwEn53JAhEUbM3V5dZLoB3YSgcz7RurjvVy0+8 M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAOABI0+rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABEn12OdoEFgXkICgEXED8NBRhQIxwBBB4Xh2KZZAGeOwSJEAEkCycRAg4BhBM3gzsEiD+FBJpF
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,582,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="27487979"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Jan 2012 19:59:12 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.197]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0RJxCHP006021; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:59:12 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'v6ops' <v6ops@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:59:12 -0800
Message-ID: <169401ccdd2e$23b48910$6b1d9b30$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AczdLiNo+NvlTE2QQH2IlmZasEPwAg==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: pcp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:59:20 -0000
v6ops, I was reading over draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis today and have a suggestion. Background: RFC6092 is v6ops's Simple CPE Security document, which recommends that a protocol be used to allow a passive listener (e.g., web camera) to open a pinhole. In that document, James Woodyatt's ALD was suggested as a possible candidate protocol for that function. But I see that both the old RFC6204 and draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-05 say this (I added uppercase for emphasis): S-1: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support [RFC6092]. In particular, the IPv6 CE router SHOULD support functionality sufficient for implementing the set of recommendations in [RFC6092], Section 4. This document takes no position on whether such functionality is enabled by default OR MECHANISMS BY WHICH USERS WOULD CONFIGURE IT. I would like draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis to take the position that Port Control Protocol (PCP) be the protocol for the uppercased function. Stated more clearly, I would like the above paragraph to read: S-1: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support [RFC6092]. In particular, the IPv6 CE router SHOULD support functionality sufficient for implementing the set of recommendations in [RFC6092], Section 4. This document takes no position on whether such functionality is enabled by default. The IPv6 CE router ...............................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SHOULD implement a PCP server [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] so that .........^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ hosts can configure this functionality. .........^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ If you need more background, please be sure to read both REQ-48 and REQ-49 of RFC6092. PCP would be a specific protocol that fulfills REQ-49. In anticipation of one of the earlier objections that making PCP a normative requirement would delay draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-base shows the document status is Publication Requested because the PCP working group finished its WGLC on the document. -d
- [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Dan Wing
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Simon Perreault
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Dan Wing
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Mark Baugher
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Randy Bush
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Francis Dupont
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Ole Troan (otroan)
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Francis Dupont
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Wuyts Carl
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Francis Dupont
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis james woodyatt
- [v6ops] Fwd: PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204b… james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Simon Perreault
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Tim Chown