Subject: Re: [pcp] #46: NONEXIST_PEER

From: "pcp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:37:56 -0000

#46: NONEXIST_PEER

Changes (by dwing@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 resolved.  In pcp-base-08, the PEER OpCode can create an implicit dynamic
 mapping, exactly the same as created by an inside->outside TCP SYN or
 inside->outside UDP packet.  The error code NONEXIST_PEER is removed.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
 Reporter:  Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@…>          |        Owner:        
     Type:  defect                                |       Status:  closed
 Priority:  major                                 |    Milestone:        
Component:  base                                  |      Version:        
 Severity:  -                                     |   Resolution:  fixed 
 Keywords:                                        |  
--------------------------------------------------+-------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/46#comment:1>
pcp <http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/>

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 09:37:20 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 1:16 AM
> To: pcp issue tracker
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [pcp] #46: NONEXIST_PEER
> 
> I disagree: it should not be closed until tickets it depends on
> are not closed... (#46 for instance).
> 
> [email-masked]

Ticket #46 should not be closed until ticket #46 is closed??

-d

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:38:39 -0700

> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:48 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: [email-masked]
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
> => typo: s/46/48/

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/48 proposes to remove PEER.

I do not agree that removing PEER would improve the protocol.  

And, based on these 4-5 tickets that have been open since IETF80, it
seems few people care enough to comment about issues on the mailing
list.  

As editor, in the absence of guidance from the WG, I am left to 
figure out what I think improves the protocol.

-d