ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Review of draft-ietf-behave-dccp-04

2008-11-06 07:24:07
On Thursday 06 November 2008 14:07:41 ext Christian Vogt, you wrote:
(2) On requirements 1 and 3:

         REQ-1: A NAT MUST have an "Endpoint-Independent Mapping"
         behavior for DCCP.

         REQ-3: If application transparency is most important, it is
         RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an "Endpoint-independent filtering"
         behavior for DCCP.  If a more stringent filtering behavior is
         most important, it is RECOMMENDED that a NAT have an
         "Address-dependent filtering" behavior.

     These requirements are general and not specific to DCCP.  Would it
     make sense to specify them in a separate RFC for NATs in general,
     independent of any specific transport protocol?

Whether it's of any use depends on the connection model (or lack thereof) of 
the transport protocol. I don't want to presume that this would make sense 
for all future transport protocols. In fact, it does not make sense for 
multicast UDP(-Lite) to me - which has its own document.

(3) On requirement 6:

         REQ-6: If a NAT includes ALGs, it MUST NOT affect DCCP.

     This requirement is not 100% clear.  I am assuming it means:  "If a
     NAT includes ALGs, the NAT MUST NOT affect DCCP packets that are
     processed by one of those ALGs."  Suggest to reword the requirement
     in this way.

This reads worse to me. An ALG cannot "process" DCCP packets if it does not 
affect in any way. There is already a IESG discuss on this. What about this?

          REQ-6: If a NAT includes ALGs, they MUST NOT affect DCCP.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
Maemo Software, Nokia Devices R&D
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>