Subject: [pcp] Comments on draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-00

From: "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 11:15:39 +0000

I reviewed this draft for a possible WGLC but I do not think it is ready.
My summary is that this draft has lots of text related to detection of PCP
unaware NAT/FW using STUN which IMO belong in a separate draft, or some
other document since it is generic text. Maybe the WG sees value in having
a separate document that talks exclusively about detection of PCP unaware
FWs.

This draft could just say "assuming all NAT/FW in the path are PCP
aware..." and take it from there since the goal is optimizing keep-alive
and not standardizing detection mechanisms.

Removing all detection text would make this draft quite short and easier
to understand its purpose.

Thanks,

Reinaldo

---

From: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2013 22:20:46 +0000

Hi Reinaldo,
Sections "3.3 Detect PCP Unaware Firewall" and "4. Keepalive Interval Determination Procedure when PCP unaware Firewall or NAT is detected" were added based on Dave's recommendation.

Section 3.3 does not introduce anything new, it only provides an example on how a PCP unaware firewall can be detected using STUN. Section 4 is also a recommendation on what can be potentially done if a PCP unaware firewall was detected.

Dave, what are your thoughts on this?

-Prashanth

On 11/10/13 4:45 PM, "Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Thanks,

Reinaldo