Subject: [pcp] Comments on draft-ietf-pcp-base-18

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:10:23 +0000

Hi all,
Some comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-18 are below.

1. P30
"6.  If the client receives an UNSUPP_VERSION result containing a
       version it does not support then the client MAY log an error
       message to inform the user that it is too old to work with this
       server, and the client SHOULD set a timer to retry its request in
       30 minutes or the returned Lifetime value, whichever is smaller."

         If the versions do not match, does it make sense to resend the request?
         Version change may not happen in a short time.

2. P32,
         "The 'external' address is the Suggested
   External Address field of the MAP or PEER request, and is address
   family is usually the same as the 'internal' address family,"

   is address ... is ...,
   typo, should be "its" address familly ...?

3. P40
9.2.  Generating a MAP Request
         " If the client wants all protocols mapped it uses Protocol 0 (zero)
   and Internal Port 0 (zero)."

         it might be helpful to state that this is the case of Protocol that does not
          use 16-bit port numbers, or merge this paragraph with the previous paragraph.

4. P57
"Where possible, it may beneficial if a client using the THIRD_PARTY"

         it may "be" beneficial ....

5. P56/57
11.1.  THIRD_PARTY Option for MAP and PEER Opcodes
         zero-length THIRD_PARTY Option

          when the option length is zero, what is the "Internal IP Address" field? nothing,
         set to zero, or as is?
         Is "zero in the Internal Port field, and zero in the Protocol field" not enough to
          delete all the mappings?

Have a good weekend,
Tina