Subject: Re: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13

From: Tina Zouting <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 03:02:53 +0000

Hi,
It seems that http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/24, "PCP mappings same public IP address as dynamic mappings" is not reflected in the latest version.
Sorry for the late feedback.

Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alain Durand
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:34 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [pcp] WG last call on draft-ietf-pcp-base-13

draft-ietf-pcp-base-13 has been published to address the comments received during wg last call on the -12 revision. We would like to start a 1-week working group last call on this new revision.

The PCP wg chairs, Alain & Dave.

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 5, 2011, at 11:19 PM, "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> draft-ietf-pcp-base-13 was just posted.  Changes are in
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-13#appendix-B.1, and copied
> below.
> 
> Side-by-side diffs between -12 and -13 are at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-base-13.txt
> 
> This should resolve all comments from -12's WGLC.
> 
> -d
> 
>   o  All addresses are 128 bits.  IPv4 addresses are represented by
>      IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (::FFFF/96)
> 
>   o  PCP request header now includes PCP client's port (in addition to
>      the client's IP address, which was in -12).
> 
>   o  new ADDRESS_MISMATCH error.
> 
>   o  removed PROCESSING_ERROR error, which was too similar to
>      MALFORMED_REQUEST.
> 
>   o  Tweaked text describing how PCP client deals with multiple PCP
>      server addresses (Section 6.1)
> 
>   o  clarified that when overloaded, the server can send
>      SERVER_OVERLOADED (and drop requests) or simply drop requests.
> 
>   o  Clarified how PCP client chooses MAP4 or MAP6, depending on the
>      presence of its own IPv6 or IPv4 interfaces (Section 7).
> 
>   o  compliant PCP server MUST support MAPx and PEERx, SHOULD support
>      ability to disable support.
> 
>   o  clarified that MAP-created mappings have no filtering, and PEER-
>      created mappings have whatever filtering and mapping behavior is
>      normal for that particular NAT / firewall.
> 
>   o  Integrated WGLC feedback (small changes to abstract, definitions,
>      and small edits throughout the document)
> 
>   o  allow new Options to be defined with a specification (rather than
>      standards action)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
_______________________________________________
pcp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp