Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-0: protocols supported

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:07:48 +0200

Hi,

in the current draft we have:

R6: Protocols supported
The translation mechanism MUST support at least TCP, UDP, ICMP, TLS.

Question: what is the rationale we include TLS here? souyld we have a 
citeria of which protocols shoudl be in this req?

Question: should we move DCCP and SCTP to MUST rahter than SHOULD? 
(Magnus, is this what you were requesting in your emails before?)

Regards, marcelo

---

From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:55:05 +0300

> citeria of which protocols shoudl be in this req?

Being (wrongly) cut and pasted from the STUN/TURN specs??

> (Magnus, is this what you were requesting in your emails before?)

I can't comment on SCTP. But...

If TCP can be translated, DCCP can be translated.
If UDP can be translated, UDP-Lite can be translated.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:04:01 +0200

> Being (wrongly) cut and pasted from the STUN/TURN specs??
:-)
could be, but in this case this is not it
> If TCP can be translated, DCCP can be translated.
doesn't dccp support multiaddressing?
Regards, marcelo

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:38:40 +0300 (EEST)

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> Question: what is the rationale we include TLS here? souyld we have a citeria 
> of which protocols shoudl be in this req?
>
> Question: should we move DCCP and SCTP to MUST rahter than SHOULD? (Magnus, 
> is this what you were requesting in your emails before?)

We could require a lot of things.  The main thing this could have 
impact on is the length of the specification and the time it would 
take to develop it; I don't see how it could help in selecting 
solutions because all the solutions could be extended to provide this 
functionality.  In all probability it would have zero impact on what 
gets deployed out there. I.e.: even if such functionality would be a 
MUST in a solution, vendors and providers would likely, at least 
initially, ship a NATxx box that wouldn't support these features.

As such, I see little value in practise of adding SCTP or DCCP to the 
'must' list.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings