Subject: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-05: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 07:49:15 -0700

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-05: 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

I don't see any discussion of the size of the Binding Table. In fact, it
seems to be assumed to be "large enough". History shows that we are not
good at guessing the value of "large enough" and certainly the 
application of this mechanism to VPNs makes this a little worrying. That
probably means that the document needs to describe what happens when the
Binding Table is full. Might be as simple as handling the failure case
in 4.2.1.

---

Shouldn't you describe some manageability considerations? What events
should be logged? What access to the stored informaiton should be
provided? (For example, should theoperator be able to read the Binding
Table?)