Subject: [pcp] Spencer Dawkins' Discuss on draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 05:15:13 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-proxy/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This should be an easy Discuss to resolve.

I was surprised to see 

   In addition, this goes against the spirit of NAT gateways.  The main
   purpose of a NAT gateway is to make multiple downstream client
   devices making outgoing TCP connections to appear, from the point of
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   view of everything upstream of the NAT gateway, to be a single client
   device making outgoing TCP connections.  In the same spirit, it makes
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   sense for a PCP-capable NAT gateway to make multiple downstream
   client devices requesting port mappings to appear, from the point of
   view of everything upstream of the NAT gateway, to be a single client
   device requesting port mappings.
   
limited to TCP connections. Is this intentional?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6887#section-2.2 certainly lists other
transport protocols.

Is it correct to say 

   In addition, this goes against the spirit of NAT gateways.  The main
   purpose of a NAT gateway is to make multiple downstream client
   devices to appear, from the point of
   view of everything upstream of the NAT gateway, to be a single client
   device.  
   
?

Please note that I'm not objecting to the focus on TCP in this text:

   Where this document uses the terms "upstream" and "downstream", the
   term "upstream" refers to the direction outbound packets travel
   towards the public Internet, and the term "downstream" refers to the
   direction inbound packets travel from the public Internet towards
   client systems.  Typically when a home user views a web site, their
   computer sends an outbound TCP SYN packet upstream towards the public
   Internet, and an inbound downstream TCP SYN ACK reply comes back from
   the public Internet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I share Stephen's curiosity in his Discuss, but I'll follow along there
(I saw Med responded 15 minutes ago).

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 12:28:09 +0000

Hi Spencer, 

Thank you for the review. 

Your suggested wording works for me. I implemented it in my local copy. Thanks.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : pcp [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Spencer Dawkins
> Envoyé : jeudi 9 juillet 2015 14:15
> À : The IESG
> Cc : [email-masked]
> Objet : [pcp] Spencer Dawkins' Discuss on draft-ietf-pcp-proxy-08: (with
> DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 08:35:46 -0500

Hi, Med,

> Your suggested wording works for me. I implemented it in my local copy.

Thanks, and I'll clear now.

> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html