-- BCP or not? -- As previously-responsible AD for behave, I have had serious concerns about this document being published as a BCP.
In another email, I discussed whether PCP should be required to be compliant to this BCP. I think the IETF needs to decide whether lsn-requirements is something to be compliant to. The title and BCP status seem rather misleading, in my opinion. Following RFC3365, MUST is for implementers; SHOULD is for deployers. If we want to require vendors to implement specific features in a manner COMPLIANT to this specification, then this really should be a standard, not a BCP. If we want to standardize implementation behaviors, then I think this should be an explicit standard, not some other type of RFC that will implicitly be a standard but with possibly less scrutiny than an explicit standard would generate. A BCP often carries similar weight to a standard, and I question whether some of these requirements are best CURRENT practice, especially if PCP is a MUST. It might be best DESIRED practice, or best RECOMMENDED practice, but I doubt some of these requirements are best CURRENT practice. If we simply want to document what some existing deployments are doing, then I think an Applicability statement or an Informational RFC might be more appropriate than a BCP. I think this should be a BCP only if there is a strong consensus that this is the way deployments SHOULD be done, based on actual deployment experience by a variety of operators using current implementations - that would represent best CURRENT practices. -- David Harrington Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) [email protected] +1-603-828-1401 On 7/19/12 8:51 AM, "Simon Perreault" <[email protected]> wrote: >Behaviers, PCPers, > >During IESG review of draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements, a DISCUSS was >filed regarding the PCP requirement. Details below. > >I think this DISCUSS needs to be discussed. So please discuss. > >Please reply to [email protected]. > >Thanks, >Simon > > >-------- Message original -------- >Sujet: Re: Martin Stiemerling's Discuss on >draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >Date : Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:46:42 +0200 >De : Martin Stiemerling <[email protected]> >Pour : Simon Perreault <[email protected]> >Copie à : The IESG <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, ><[email protected]> > >Hi Simon, all, > >On 07/17/2012 11:11 PM, Simon Perreault wrote: >> Le 2012-07-17 16:42, Martin Stiemerling a écrit : >>>> Each and every CGN MUST have PCP and MUST follow the constraints. I'll >>>> fix the text in a later revision. >>> >>> Can we mandate a specific protocol to be used for this or can we only >>> mandate that such a type of protocol is being used? I don't see the >>>IETF >>> in the position to mandate this type of protocol for CGNs. >>> >>> There are other protocols out there which might be suitable. Note that >>>I >>> am co-author of some, but this isn't the reason for the question. I do >>> not get any reward if I promote these protocols. >>> >>> It is more: >>> do we need to constrain CGN deployments to a protocol (PCP) which is >>> developed right now, or are we open to existing or future protocols, or >>> whatever folks deploying this deem right? >>> >>> I would propose to change REQ-9 to : >>> REQ-9: A CGN MUST include a middlebox control protocol that allows >>> manipulation of CGN bindings with the following contstraints <list >>>items >>> A and B> >>> REQ-9a: If PCP is used these contstraints MUST be applied in addition >>>to >>> contraints A and B: >>> <list items C and D> >> >> That was discussed in IETF 81 (Québec). Here's the extract from the >> minutes: >> >> Stuart Cheshire: ietf has one port forwarding protocol, which >> is PCP, so we should require it by name > >There are multiple middlebox control protocols published by the IETF >(standards track and experimental) and I have not seen any call for >consensus on what **the** IETF's middlebox control is, neither I have >seen any RFC that states this. > >I do not see that an individual can declare IETF consensus based on his >own opinion. > > >> >> Dave Thaler: I agree. PCP doc is in final stages. > >Again, an opinion of an individual. Nothing wrong about it, but it does >not state IETF consensus. > >> >> There was consensus from the WG. In consequence, the text was changed >> from this (-02): >> >> A CGN SHOULD support a port forwarding protocol such as the >> Port Control Protocol [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]. >> >> to this (-03): >> >> A CGN SHOULD include a Port Control Protocol server >> [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]. >> >> (That requirement later became a MUST, but that's orthogonal to what >> protocol we require.) > >I do not see that the IETF can mandate what protocols are being used to >control a device. The market will decide! > >For instance, the is no MUST required that routers implement BGP. It is >good to do this, but if one decides to go for IS-IS (or whatever) that >is just fine. > >Another example, there is also no MUST requirement that routers, or >hosts in general, have to implement SNMP. > >However, I can see the immediate need to mandate that a CGN SHOULD/MUST >support a middlebox control protocol that is able to install and >maintain NAT bindings. > > Martin > >-- >[email protected] > >NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited >Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL >Registered in England 283 > > >_______________________________________________ >Behave mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
