Subject: [pcp] -06 review: PEER

From: Paul Selkirk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 23:10:55 +0000

9.1.  OpCode Packet Formats
   The PEER OpCodes provide a single function: the ability for the PCP
   client to query and (possibly) extend the lifetime of an existing
   mapping.

implicitly, an implicit dynamic mapping

9.4.  OpCode-Specific Server: Processing a Request
      Note: it is implementation-specific if the PCP-controlled device
      destroys the mapping when the lifetime expires, or if
      inside->outside traffic keeps the mapping alive.

You mean the PCP-negotiated lifetime.

9.5.  OpCode-Specific Client: Processing a Response
   If a successful response, the PCP client uses the assigned lifetime

This clause no verb.

   If the PCP client wishes to keep this mapping alive beyond the
   indicated lifetime, it SHOULD issue a new PCP request prior to the
   expiration.

s/PCP request/PEER request/

At a more meta level, is there a reason for the server to return the
external addr and port on a PEER request?  Ostensibly, the only reason
to issue a PEER request is to control the lifetime of an implicit
dynamic mapping.

If this is a back-door way of incorporating STUN-like mapping
discovery, we should be much more explicit about it.

				paul