Subject: [tcpm] Working group consensus concerning TCP-AO NAT draft

From: "SCHARF, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:57:05 +0200

Folks,

in yesterday's meeting there has been no apparent interest in
draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-02, and the deadline of the poll has expired. If
there is lack of interest, the document has to move forward as an
independent submission without further feedback from the working group. 

I'd like to verify that this is the consensus of the working group.
Please speak up urgently if you should disagree.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Wesley Eddy
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 5:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [tcpm] poll for adoption of TCP-AO NAT draft

TCP-AO has been published for some time.  NAT support was separated from
AO during development, but Joe has maintained a draft describing how to
support operation through NATs and it has been discussed in the past on
the mailing list and in TCPM meetings.

This is a relatively short document, and Joe has recently updated it
based on feedback.

The latest copy of the document is at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-touch-tcp-ao-nat-02

Please let us know in the next 2 weeks (by March 30) if you would
support this as a WG document (via reviewing and commenting on it) for
Proposed Standard.

If needed, we can discuss this in Prague.  Thanks for your feedback.

--
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

---

From: "Anantha Ramaiah (ananth)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:17:23 -0700

I had already already communicated my comments to Joe in private
conversation. I am listing them below.

- This method won't work when NAT is doing the ALG functionality.
Examples include FTP, SIP, Skinny protocol, etc., Since some part of the
payload (IP addr/port) needs to be adjusted for ALG's.

Hence this restricts the applicability of this document to some NAT
features. I would urge that this limitation is explicitly noted in the
document irrespective of whichever route it takes. (individual or WG)

Thanks,
-Anantha

> SCHARF, Michael
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:57 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [tcpm] Working group consensus concerning TCP-AO NAT draft
> 
> Folks,
>

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:33:28 -0700

Hi, all,

I'm glad to complete this work as an individual submission, but had 
hoped to include it as a WG item because it extends a WG standard 
(albeit experimentally), in support of another WG's interest (some 
members of MPTCP had asked, and it would benefit from cross-area review 
that would be more difficult to accomplish as an individual.

Especially to those who have been silent on this, I would appreciate a 
note to the list ;-)

Glad to do what the WG decides...

Thanks,

Joe

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 11:35:09 -0700

Hi, Anantha,

> document irrespective of whichever route it takes. (individual or WG)

Yes, we had talked about it, as well as the fact that there are many 
protocols that don't require ALG support and thus would not be affected, 
but it's a good point to note, regardless, and I expect to revise the 
doc shortly (regardless of outcome, as an individual update) on this and 
another point Dan Wing raised on another list...

Joe