Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

I disagree. 
I believe the marketplace should determine the winning technology in this case, if there is to be a winning technology. RFC6204bis needs to continue to take no position. 

Just because other solutions weren't created by IETF doesn't mean they are any less good. 
Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 02:59 PM
To: 'v6ops' <v6ops@ietf.org>
Cc: pcp@ietf.org <pcp@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org <draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

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