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

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Sat, 28 January 2012 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
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 E903621F85D2; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:05:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 jwnJAZrVrSRt; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:05:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F3A21F859F; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:05:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0SF51fU007229; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:05:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201201281505.q0SF51fU007229@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:18:01 GMT. <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611025315@GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 16:05:01 +0100
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Cc: "'v6ops@ietf.org'" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "'pcp@ietf.org'" <pcp@ietf.org>, "'draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org'" <draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:05:09 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  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.

=> +1: if we want to recommend a protocol there is no reason to
forget UPnP IGD v2 (to take a solution similar to PCP) or the
zillion of other ways to control NAT/Fireall.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr