Subject: [pcp] #48: Is PEER opcode support mandatory?

From: "pcp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 20:53:34 -0000

#48: Is PEER opcode support mandatory?

 From Francis Dupont:
 > (related to #17 ticket and WG charter)
 >
 > I read the charter twice and I still can't find where the function
 > provided by the PEER opcode (according the #17 ticket "using PCP to
 > reduce application- level keepalive traffic") is a part of the PCP
 description in the charter.

 I believe it falls out of the requirement to support existing APIs so that
 apps don't have to change:

  This eases the deployment of PCP in situations where  applications have
 already changed to support the APIs necessary for  communicating with
 UPnP-IGD or NAT-PMP. Those applications only work  today when the home
 gateway gets a public address, but may no longer  work in situations where
 the gateway is behind another NAT. Home  gateways could use PCP to
 translate and relay those UPnP and NAP-PMP  messages to the PCP server,
 thus allowing such applications to continue  working as they do today.

 > So I'd like to open a new tracker ticket about the idea to move the
 > PEER section 9 from the base spec document to an extension one.

 In a parallel thread you asked the more general question:
 >> BTW I can ask the same question about the PEER stuff:
 >> the fact it is in the base document does mean it is mandatory to
 support?

-- 
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  Francis.Dupont@…           |       Owner:     
     Type:  defect                     |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                      |   Milestone:     
Component:  base                       |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                          |    Keywords:     
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/48>
pcp <http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/>