Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:12:38 +0200

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you
may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2014-1-26

IETF LC End Date: 2014-2-4

IESG Telechat date: 

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a standard track RFC.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1.       I am not sure what the use of the "description" option is. I can
see how to create one but as for usage the only text I can see is "Querying
the PCP server to get the description text of an existing mapping is out of
scope." I think that the document should provide information about the
purpose of this option.

Nits/editorial comments:

1.	The IANA section should provide enough information to fill the
registry
http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcp-parameters/pcp-parameters.xml#options

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:31:06 +0100

Dear Roni,
Thank you for the review.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]]
Envoyé : dimanche 26 janvier 2014 09:13
À : [email-masked]
Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Objet : Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2014-1-26

IESG Telechat date:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1.       I am not sure what the use of the "description" option is. I can see how to create one but as for usage the only text I can see is "Querying the PCP server to get the description text of an existing mapping is out of scope." I think that the document should provide information about the purpose of this option.

[Med] The main usage is for a user to associate a textual description with a mapping. This is captured by this text "   This option can be used by a user (or an application) to indicate a
   description associated with a given mapping such as "FTP server", "My
   remote access to my CP router", "Camera", "Network attached storage
   serve", etc.

"

Nits/editorial comments:

 1.  The IANA section should provide enough information to fill the registry http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcp-parameters/pcp-parameters.xml#options
[Med] Required information as per RFC6887 is provided in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03#section-2.

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:31:08 +0200

Hi Med, 

Inline

Roni

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 27 January, 2014 10:31 AM
To: Roni Even; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03

Dear Roni,

Please see inline.

Cheers,

Med

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2014–1-26

IETF LC End Date: 2014–2-4

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1.       I am not sure what the use of the “description” option is. I can
see how to create one but as for usage the only text I can see is “Querying
the PCP server to get the description text of an existing mapping is out of
scope.” I think that the document should provide information about the
purpose of this option.

[Med] The main usage is for a user to associate a textual description with a
mapping. This is captured by this text “   This option can be used by a user
(or an application) to indicate a

   serve", etc.

”

[Roni Even] This is motivation but it is not clear why the user does it if
no one can see it or does anything with it. It is kept on the server but not
used by anyone?

Nits/editorial comments:

[Med] Required information as per RFC6887 is provided in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03#section-2. 

[Roni Even] So section 5 should point to the definition is section 2

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:55:07 +0100

Re-,
The description is used by the entity managing the PCP server. The document does not elaborate on such usage as this is deployment-specific: e.g.,  (1) it can be used as  helper to clean the mapping table, (2) in some deployments that make use of a portal to instruct pcp mappings, this option can be used to store a subscriber-identifier, etc. We can add some text if you think this is useful to be mentioned in the document.
For the second point, I updated Section 5 with a pointer to Section 2. Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
De : Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]]
Envoyé : lundi 27 janvier 2014 10:31
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; [email-masked]
Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Objet : RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03

Hi Med,
Inline
Roni

From: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 27 January, 2014 10:31 AM
To: Roni Even; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03

Dear Roni,
Thank you for the review.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : Roni Even [mailto:[email-masked]]
Envoyé : dimanche 26 janvier 2014 09:13
À : [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Cc : [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
Objet : Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2014-1-26

IESG Telechat date:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

"

[Roni Even] This is motivation but it is not clear why the user does it if no one can see it or does anything with it. It is kept on the server but not used by anyone?

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 12:02:01 +0200

Hi,

This should be stated and I assume that it is not for standardization but
not clear why the entity operating the PCP server needs it, is it described
in another document.

I am curious why querying the PCP server is “out of scope” and not is “for
further work”.

Roni

From: Reinaldo Penno (repenno) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 27 January, 2014 11:39 AM
To: Roni Even; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03

Hi,

The idea is that it can be seen by the entity operating the PCP Server. 

Thanks,

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, January 27, 2014 at 1:31 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03
Resent-From: <[email-masked]>
Resent-To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Cisco
Employee <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Resent-Date: Monday, January 27, 2014 at 1:35 AM

Hi Med, 

Inline

Roni

Dear Roni,

Please see inline.

Cheers,

Med

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2014–1-26

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Major issues:

Minor issues:

   serve", etc.

”

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:30:24 +0200

Hi Med,

I think some text will be useful

Roni

Sent: 27 January, 2014 11:55 AM

Re-,

The description is used by the entity managing the PCP server. The document
does not elaborate on such usage as this is deployment-specific: e.g.,  (1)
it can be used as  helper to clean the mapping table, (2) in some
deployments that make use of a portal to instruct pcp mappings, this option
can be used to store a subscriber-identifier, etc. We can add some text if
you think this is useful to be mentioned in the document.

For the second point, I updated Section 5 with a pointer to Section 2.
Thanks.

Cheers,

Med

À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN;

Hi Med, 

Inline

Roni

Dear Roni,

Please see inline.

Cheers,

Med

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2014–1-26

IESG Telechat date: 

 

Major issues:

Minor issues:

   serve", etc.

”

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:38:44 +0000

Hi,

Thanks,

From: Roni Even <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Monday, January 27, 2014 at 1:31 AM
To: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-03
Resent-From: <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Resent-To: <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Cisco Employee <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Resent-Date: Monday, January 27, 2014 at 1:35 AM

Hi Med,
Inline
Roni

Dear Roni,

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2014–1-26

IESG Telechat date:

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1.       I am not sure what the use of the “description” option is. I can see how to create one but as for usage the only text I can see is “Querying the PCP server to get the description text of an existing mapping is out of scope.” I think that the document should provide information about the purpose of this option.

[Med] The main usage is for a user to associate a textual description with a mapping. This is captured by this text “   This option can be used by a user (or an application) to indicate a
   description associated with a given mapping such as "FTP server", "My
   remote access to my CP router", "Camera", "Network attached storage
   serve", etc.

”

Nits/editorial comments:

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:45:56 -0500

Le 2014-01-27 05:02, Roni Even a écrit :
> This should be stated and I assume that it is not for standardization
> but not clear why the entity operating the PCP server needs it, is it
> described in another document.
>
> I am curious why querying the PCP server is “out of scope” and not is
> “for further work”.

Example use case: you have several hosts in your home that do PCP 
automatically. For example, you start up Transmission, a BitTorrent 
client, and that automatically fires a PCP request to create a mapping. 
Transmission could set a description such as "Transmission BitTorrent 
client running on Roni Even's MacBook Pro". This is useful when you 
access your home router's administration web interface and see the list 
of mappings created with PCP. You can immediately understand what it is 
that is opening holes in your firewall/NAT.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca