Good point, some data in this regards: All previous behave RFCs that 'standardized' NAT behavior are BCPs (RFC4787, 5508, etc). And they are have lots of MUSTs On 7/19/12 9:37 AM, "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >-- 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) >Ietfdbh@xxxxxxxxxxx >+1-603-828-1401 > > > > > >On 7/19/12 8:51 AM, "Simon Perreault" <simon.perreault@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 behave@xxxxxxxx. >> >>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 <martin.stiemerling@xxxxxxxxx> >>Pour : Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>Copie à : The IESG <iesg@xxxxxxxx>, <behave-chairs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, >><draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >>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 >> >>-- >>martin.stiemerling@xxxxxxxxx >> >>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 >>Behave@xxxxxxxx >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > > >_______________________________________________ >Behave mailing list >Behave@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave