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

[Richard Patterson <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 24, 2018, at 12:13 PM, STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>