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

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[e-mail]>]

James,

 

Sorry for the delay.   Along the lines of what Barbara already said, I
would like to add that major host OS's  such as Microsoft Windows nor
MAC OS (?) support a PCP client yet?  At least till a few months back -
vendors can keep me honest.   If a host does not support a PCP client,
what host will issue PCP requests to a PCP server in the IPv6 CPE
router?   Thus it makes sense to let the homenet WG deal with the PCP
server req on the CPE router LAN and we ship rfc6204bis with the PCP
client req that Alain Durand agreed with for DS-Lite use.  Thanks to
Dave Thaler who helped prepare text for the specific PCP client req in
the CPE.

 

Thanks,

 

Hemant

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of james woodyatt
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 5:09 PM
To: STARK, BARBARA H
Cc: IPv6 Operations; PCP; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

 

 

On Jan 30, 2012, at 12:59 , STARK, BARBARA H wrote:





 

If I were to make a technical argument about the harmfulness of RFC
6092, I would start with a lengthy review of its Security
Considerations, in section 6.

 

I think it's a debatable question of procedure, whether it was an error
at the time for V6OPS to publish RFC 6204 with its S-1 "requirement" to
recommend implementation of RFC 6092.  There was a clamor for the timely
publication of a document, and neither HOMENET nor PCP were remotely
close to usable when RFC 6204 was in WGLC.

 

I do think it shouldn't be controversial *now* to say that HOMENET is
the venue where any further IETF recommendations about the
implementation of RFC 6092 in IPv6 CE routers should originate.  If you
disagree, then once again, I have to ask for an explanation of your
reasoning.  I'm very interested to know.

 

If V6OPS wishes to continue stepping on HOMENET's charter, on the
grounds that it already has its footprints there from before HOMENET was
launched, then I suppose that's fine- but, if so, then I don't see why
V6OPS shouldn't also take this opportunity to revise RFC 6204 to
recommend a PCP server to meet REC-48 in RFC 6092.  Again, as a purely
technical matter- I know, technical matters are so boring- IETF has a
standards-track protocol for ""host applications to solicit inbound
traffic without advance knowledge of the addresses of exterior nodes
with which they expect to communicate" as RFC 6092 recommends.  We did
not have this protocol when either RFC 6092 or RFC 6204 were ready for
publication, but we do now.  I fail to see any technical basis for
leaving this unspecified in RFC 6204bis.  Is there one?

 

Alternatively, if this is primarily a procedural dispute, then we could
open RFC6092bis in order to update REC-48 accordingly, then cite the
RFC6092bis in RFC6204bis with a publication in lockstep.  Which would
you prefer?

 

 

--

j h woodyatt <[e-mail]>