IETF conflict review for draft-cheshire-nat-pmp
conflict-review-cheshire-nat-pmp-00
Yes
(Ralph Droms)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Barry Leiba)
(Brian Haberman)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-01-22)
Unknown
No objection to the conflict review. One piece of advice to the authors. While reading the draft, I found difficult to understand the connection between this draft and the PCP work. The abstract mentions In 2012 NAT-PMP was superseded by the IETF Standards-Track Port Control Protocol, which builds on NAT-PMP and uses a compatible packet format, but adds a number of significant enhancements [PCP]. And then, it's only in the section 8 that I understood: In 2012 NAT-PMP was superseded by the IETF Standards-Track Port Control Protocol [PCP]. PCP builds on NAT-PMP and uses a compatible packet format, and adds a number of significant enhancements, including IPv6 support, management of outbound mappings, management of firewall rules, full compatibility with large-scale NATs with a pool of external addresses, error lifetimes, and an extension mechanism to enable future enhancements. The intro should contain this text, with some information about the timing of draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-06 and draft-ietf-pcp-base-26. What confused me was that those two documents are being worked in parallel. So competing solutions? not really!. It's just that draft-cheshire-nat-pmp-06 should have ideally be published years ago, so that PCP could build on top of it. Note: I had to call Ralph Droms to get this history.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-01-22)
Unknown
- The authors note that PCP is the IETF standards-track way to do this stuff. But I wasn't clear if they're saying that it'd be good for clients of this protocol to upgrade to PCP or that clients of NAT-PMP are just fine to keep using it as they do today and needn't bother updating to PCP even if a NAT box has. (I'm not saying that one is better than the other, nor that the authors are wrong to not say, but I was left wondering.) - This refers to rfc 1918. I'm not sure when it'd be good to start referring instead to the new IANA registries, or if that'd be better here or not, but you might want to think about it. - I wondered (but didn't check) if there's any way to confuse the messages here with PCP messages since the same ports are to be used for both. If so, might be no harm to note that or to explain how to disambiguate the two protocols. (If its entirely obvious when you read both then I guess its fine not to say.)
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-01-24)
Unknown
I hope the authors take Benoit's advice.
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown