Subject: [pcp] pcp-base-08 posted

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:33:34 -0700

pcp-base-08 has been posted.  Document is at
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-08>.  Side by side
differences from -07 is at
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-base-08.txt

Significant changes include:

  * elimination of IMPLICIT_MAPPING_EXISTS, which involves recommendations
for how non-EIM NATs need to be implemented with PCP (see Section 8.9).
This is from from Stuart Chesire's presentation at IETF80, specifically
slides 7-15 at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/slides/pcp-8.pdf.  Based
on some private emails this issue may not be fully resolved, but it is
resolved to the best of my personal understanding.  Tracker issue #45,
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/45, which has been open for 3
weeks.

  * options no longer need to be ordered.  Tracker issue #41,
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/41, which was open for 5
weeks.  

  * allow PEER to create a mapping that works exactly like an implicit
dynamic mapping, and eliminated NONEXIST_PEER error.  Tracker issue #46,
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/46, which has been open for 3
weeks.

  * PCP runs on the same port as NAT-PMP (5351).  Tracker issue #47,
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/47, which has been open for 3
weeks.

other changes are copied below (or see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-08#appendix-B.1).

-d

-----

B.1.  Changes from draft-ietf-pcp-base-07 to -08

   o  moved all MAP4-, MAP6-, and PEER-specific options into a single
      section.

   o  discussed NAPT port-overloading and its impact on MAP (new section
      Section 8.9), which allowed removing the IMPLICIT_MAPPING_EXISTS
      error.

   o  eliminated NONEXIST_PEER error (which was returned if a PEER
      request was received without an implicit dynamic mapping already
      being created), and adjusted PEER so that it creates an implicit
      dynamic mapping.

   o  Removed Deployment Scenarios section (which detailed NAT64, NAT44,
      Dual-Stack Lite, etc.).

   o  Added Client's IP Address to PCP common header.  This allows
      server to refuse a PCP request if there is a mismatch with the
      source IP address, such as when a non-PCP-aware NAT was on the
      path.  This should reduce failure situations where PCP is deployed
      in conjunction with a non-PCP-aware NAT.  This addition was
      consensus at IETF80.

   o  Changed UNSPECIFIED_ERROR to PROCESSING_ERROR.  Clarified that
      MALFORMED_REQUEST is for malformed requests (and not related to
      failed attempts to process the request).

   o  Removed MISORDERED_OPTIONS.  Consensus of IETF80.

   o  SERVER_OVERLOADED is now a common PCP error (instead of specific
      to MAP).

   o  Tweaked PCP retransmit/retry algorithm again, to allow more
      aggressive PCP discovery if an implementation wants to do that.

   o  Version negotiation text tweaked to soften NAT-PMP reference, and
      more clearly explain exactly what UNSUPP_VERSION should return.

   o  PCP now uses NAT-PMP's UDP port, 5351.  There are no normative
      changes to NAT-PMP or PCP to allow them both to use the same port
      number.

   o  New Appendix A to discuss NAT-PMP / PCP interworking.

   o  improved pseudocode to be non-blocking.

   o  clarified that PCP cannot delete a static mapping (i.e., a mapping
      created by CLI or other non-PCP means).

   o  moved theft of mapping discussion from Epoch section to Security
      Considerations, (Section 12.5).