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

Hi Jordi, 

As you are on it, and given the IETF recommendation in RFC6888:

   REQ-9:  A CGN MUST implement a protocol giving subscribers explicit
      control over NAT mappings.  That protocol SHOULD be the Port
      Control Protocol [RFC6887].

which would apply also to the PLAT, I suggest you add an item in the 464lat section to support RFC6970. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Envoyé : jeudi 26 avril 2018 21:41
> À : V6 Ops List
> Objet : 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops