Hi SM, Please see inline.
Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+i...@elandsys.com] >Envoyé : mercredi 11 juin 2014 21:10 >À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy); int- >a...@ietf.org >Objet : RE: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-host- >identifier-scenarios-04 > >Hi Med, >At 07:24 11-06-2014, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: >> The INTAREA working group >> >previously worked on a RFC about potential solutions for revealing a >> >host identifier. Are the potential solutions discussed in RFC 6967 >> >inadequate? >> >>[Med] The effort in RFC6967 does not ambition to pick a solution but >>to conduct an analysis effort with a focus on the CGN case. That >>case is only one among others defined in the scenario draft. >>Identify and document the use cases is a first step to actually >>understand the problem we are talking about. This is a contribution >>to clarify the big picture of this problem space. > >I left in my previous comment as it may be easier for the reader to >understand the discussion. > >The previous comment mentioned "potential solutions discussed in RFC >6967". In my opinion the above response does not provide an answer >to the question. [Med] The analysis of the solutions discussed in RFC6967 was drawn with a particular focus on "Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN), application proxies, or Address plus Port (A+P)." (Excerpt from RFC6967) + an ** Internet-wide ** scope. Some parts of that analysis is "inappropriate" for some cases that are restricted to ** a single administrative domain **. For example, using an IP option is not a viable solution for the Internet-wide cases, but this option can be investigated further for the single domain case. > >You made an interesting point, i.e. clarify the big picture. I read >the RFCs coming from INTAREA. There was one about "Issues with IP >Address Sharing" in June 2011. There is another one about "Analysis >of Potential Solutions for Revealing a Host Identifier (HOST_ID) in >Shared Address Deployments" in June 2013. Now there is a draft about >"Host Identification: Use Cases". I haven't seen a discussion of >that big picture on this mailing list. My understanding of the >documents is that the working group is make a case (the word is used >loosely) for host identification. [Med] The documents produced so far by intarea focus on address sharing (read CGNs, A+P). The scenarios draft aims to provide the big picture view by gathering a list of cases that suffer from similar problems that we abstracted as "host identification problem". The inventory of these cases is IMHO useful to understand the problem space and avoid restricting it to the single CGN case. It also provides a tool to rationalize the solution design effort: For example, the current situation is that one who reads RFC7239 won't be able to link it effort to RFC6967! > >>[Med] Privacy is not out of scope as I mentioned in a previous >>message. Nevertheless, privacy implications may depend on the >>targeted use case. The considerations in RFC6967 can be completed >>with new ones if any. > >Ok. I assume that the working group has the expertise and energy to >do that work. > >>[Med] What we declared out of scope is solution-oriented aspects. We >>wanted to have a very focused document. > >This is what I read from the draft: > > "It is out of scope of this document to argue in favor or against the > use cases listed in the following sub-sections." [Med] The current version of the scenarios draft includes some cases that can be considered as deployment-specific (see for instance the case of offering Provider Wi-Fi by re-using CPE resources "Use Case#4"). These case are listed because authors are aware of such plans: a concrete example "Use Case#4" corresponds to what is mentioned in slide 12 of www.3gpp.org/ftp/workshop/2011-11-09_3GPP_BBF_SFO/Docs/3BF-11046.zip. The sentence you quoted is a warning that the authors are not taking position for these deployments. > >That is different from the above response. > >I'll wait for the Working Group Chairs to take their decision. > >Regards, >S. Moonesamy _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
