Subject: [v6ops] 6204bis W-6 new text proposal

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:28:22 +0100

Current text (from draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-07.txt as it is in the
IETF repository) is:

OLD

   W-6:  The WAN interface of the CE router SHOULD support an IPv4 PCP
         client as specified in [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] for use by
         applications on the CE Router.  This document takes no position
         on whether such functionality is enabled by default or
         mechanisms by which users would configure the functionality.

I propose following Tim Chown's wording in
draft-ietf-homenet-arch-02.txt:

NEW

   W-6:  For applications on the CE router which want to accept IPv4
         inbound connections from the WAN side, the WAN interface of
         the CE router SHOULD support a protocol such as UPnP IGD
         [UPnP-IGD] or PCP [I-D.ietf-pcp-base].  This document takes
         no position on whether such functionality is enabled by
         default or mechanisms by which users would configure the
         functionality.

Note there is already an informative reference for UPnP IGD
(with a 2001 date?). The I-D.ietf-pcp-base must be to the informative
section (and be updated as current I-D version is 24 if not done
automagically).

Thanks

[email-masked]

PS: of course there is no need of DS-Lite consideration for PCP
(nor UPnP IGD).

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:37:32 -0400

>           default or mechanisms by which users would configure the

Disagree.

We already require a PCP server in draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements. 
It is only logical that we require a PCP client at the other end of the 
wire, isn't it?

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:40:27 +0100

Re-

+1.

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De 
>la part de Simon Perreault
>Envoyé : lundi 19 mars 2012 14:38
>À : [email-masked]
>Objet : Re: [v6ops] 6204bis W-6 new text proposal
>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:43:08 +0100

Re-,

I don't see how you can get rid of the DS-Lite considerations and answer to the comments from O. Troan: see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg12293.html:

* PCP Server discovery
* PCP Clients in the LAN side.

Cheers,
Med

>la part de Francis Dupont
>Envoyé : lundi 19 mars 2012 14:28
>À : [email-masked]
>Objet : [v6ops] 6204bis W-6 new text proposal
>

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 08:58:01 -0500

Francis,

Thanks much.  Say, since UPnP-IGD is already in a descriptive section of
rfc6204bis, we have no need to included UPnP also in the W-6 PCP
requirement.   Let's keep the PCP requirement separate from UPnP.  UPnP
won't be easy to get consensus on in the IETF to add to the CE router.
Further, the W-6 bullet is ONLY about PCP and please let's stick to
that.

Now, back to some extra text that Med proposed with the address of the
AFTR.  It makes sense to add that text to clear confusion for DS-Lite
tunneled vs. native IPv6 traffic.  Maybe we can add an extra bullet for
the extra Text that Med proposed for DS-Lite and thus keep the PCP req
separate from the DS-Lite nuance and PCP?

Thanks and Regards,

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Francis Dupont
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 9:28 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [v6ops] 6204bis W-6 new text proposal

OLD

NEW

Thanks

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:15:46 -0500

Med,

I combined all generic PCP related requirements into W-6 and just kept
the DS-Lite nuance in a new W-7.

         applications on the CE Router.  The PCP client SHOULD follow

         the procedure specified in Section 8.1 of [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]

         to discover its PCP server.  This document takes no position on

         whether such functionality is enabled by default or mechanisms

         by which users would configure the functionality.  Handling PCP

         requests from PCP clients in the LAN side of the CE Router is

         out of scope.

   W-7:  In DS-Lite context, if PCP messages are exchanged using native

         IPv6 (i.e., IPv4-in-IPv6 is not used) and no PCP server is

         configured, the PCP client MUST use the address of the AFTR as

         its PCP server.

Thanks for the great DS-Lite PCP text and all your help in working with
Francis.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 9:43 AM
To: Francis Dupont; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 6204bis W-6 new text proposal

Re-,

I don't see how you can get rid of the DS-Lite considerations and answer
to the comments from O. Troan: see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg12293.html:

* PCP Server discovery

Cheers,

Med

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:22:57 +0100

>  We already require a PCP server in draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements. 

=> this is where is the mistake IMHO but I gave up to fix behave
documents (and behave people to see behave documents to have any
impact in the real world :-).

Regards

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 09:23:39 -0500

Folks,

In bullet W-6, here is the minor change.  

 s/"IPv4 PCP client"/"PCP client".

Thanks to Med for reminding me of this one.

Hemant

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:25:40 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

>  I don't see how you can get rid of the DS-Lite considerations and answer to
>   the comments from O. Troan
>  
>  * PCP Server discovery

=> This is in the "This document takes no position..." I didn't change BTW.

>  * PCP Clients in the LAN side.

=> we already agreed this is not in the v6ops scope.

Regards

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:37:58 +0100

>  Further, the W-6 bullet is ONLY about PCP and please let's stick to

=> in this case I have a strong concern about the SHOULD and I'd like
to get a MAY.

>  tunneled vs. native IPv6 traffic.

=> but this is NOT in the scope of the v6ops WG and badly interferes
with what the PCP WG decided about this issue.

>  Maybe we can add an extra bullet for the extra Text that Med
>  proposed for DS-Lite and thus keep the PCP req separate from the
>  DS-Lite nuance and PCP?

=> no, IMHO there is already too much about PCP in the document.

Regards

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:45:13 +0100

>           configured, the PCP client MUST use the address of the AFTR as

=> strongly disagree: please remove the W-7

Regards

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:48:30 +0100

>   s/"IPv4 PCP client"/"PCP client".

=> but IPv4 must be in the text, I propose to put it before
the word "applications".

Regards

PS: BTW have we good examples of such applications? In fact
I can't see an use for the W-6...

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:53:16 +0100

Re-,

Could you please explain why? Thanks.

Cheers,
Med 

>De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Envoyé : lundi 19 mars 2012 15:45
>À : Hemant Singh (shemant)
>Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; [email-masked]

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:56:58 +0100

Re-,

A concrete example is a user-interface (application) to configure mappings (e.g., for a webcam, a local server) or even an IGD-PCP IWF...

Cheers,
Med 

>Envoyé : lundi 19 mars 2012 15:49

---

From: Ray Hunter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:52:28 +0100

+1 on disagreeing proposed W-6 text.

IMHO An LSN will likely be a shared resource located deep within the 
Internet infrastructure, so no individual end user nor single 
organization will likely have sufficient power to unilaterally specify 
which control protocol is preferred for both client and server. Inbound 
access is also a function that should be available to all Internet users.

Any specification stating "client MAY support X OR Y" effectively 
implies in practice that the server (in this case the client is clearly 
targeted for future use with LSN) "MUST support X AND Y" in order for 
the desired functionality (inbound access) to be available to all users.

Proposed text, which includes the wording "such as", would also not rule 
out having to support protocol Z (or anything else similar to X or Y) on 
the server side.

I'm neutral on the choice of protocol(s), but having too many protocols 
covering the same function would likely be harmful in this case.

regards,
RayH

Simon Perreault wrote:
> <div class="moz-text-flowed">On 2012-03-19 09:28, Francis Dupont wrote:
>> NEW
>>
> It is only logical that we require a PCP client at the other end of 
> the wire, isn't it?
>
> Simon

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:36:54 -0500

Ray,

Med and I agree on this text below.  Does that work for you?  

   W-6:  The WAN interface of the CE router SHOULD support an PCP

         out of scope.

         its PCP server.

Hemant

---

From: Ray Hunter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:00:29 +0100

No objections from me.

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:04:43 -0500

Ray,

Thanks much!

Hemant

From: Ray Hunter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 2:00 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Simon Perreault; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 6204bis W-6 new text proposal

No objections from me.

Ray, 

         out of scope. 

         its PCP server. 

Hemant

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:49:20 +0200

>  Could you please explain why? Thanks.

=> I explained it many time: W-7 is in the scope of the PCP WG,
it has nothing to do in a v6ops document.

Regards

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:51:50 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

>  A concrete example is a user-interface (application) to configure mappings =
>  (e.g., for a webcam, a local server) or even an IGD-PCP IWF...

=> this is clearly at the benefit of hosts connected to the CPE so
was already discussed and agreed to not add to the requirements.
So please show an application genuine to the CPE which needs W-6.

Regards

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:58:56 +0200

>  covering the same function would likely be harmful in this case.

=> but we have no base for an arbitrary choice of one protocol.
As this requirement (W-6) has a dubious usage and not in the original
RFC 6204 perhaps the simplest is to remove it from 6204bis and to
reconsider it for 6204ter (or later).

Regards

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:03:15 +0200

>  Med and I agree on this text below.  Does that work for you?

=> in the case you are interested by my opinion, it doesn't work for me.

Regards