Hi Stephen, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx] > Envoyé : mardi 11 avril 2017 20:34 > À : Dave Dolson; BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Martin Thomson; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Cc : draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Objet : Re: draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits (was RE: Review of draft- > mm-wg-effect-encrypt-09) > > > > On 11/04/17 13:03, Dave Dolson wrote: > > Regarding "benefits", these devices clearly have perceived benefits > > I do not agree that the IETF ought described perceived benefits > as if the claimed benefits accrue as hoped for. [Med] I'm afraid it is hoped for some functions. For example, the IETF specified in the past many functions to provide specific services (called benefit in draft-dolson) such as NAT64 (IPv4 service continuity). If you don't perceive that function as a "benefit", can you please answer the following: * Because your operator is running out of IPv4 addresses, it decides to give you an IPv6 prefix without enabling any function in the network. Won't you call the hotline of that operator to claim that you don't access to most of Internet resources and that something is to be fixed otherwise you will unsubscribe? * When you are attending an IETF meeting, I assume you are using IPv6-only SSID. Do you volunteer to opt-out from NAT64 in the coming meeting? That is far too > close to marketing. In a contentious case like this, I can see > why someone may feel that's useful as a form of balance or part > of a larger debate, but in the end I think we need to step back > and take an engineering approach. [Med] Fully agree. This is why we need to understand the intended usage to have a reference for any engineering approach. > > S > > > to those who deploy them. My view is that the document should explain > > that perspective for readers who lack the operator perspective. The > > intent was not to mandate or recommend deployments. > > > > David Dolson ‎ Original Message From: mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx > > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 7:48 AM To: Stephen Farrell; Martin > > Thomson; ietf@xxxxxxxx Cc: > > draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: > > draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits (was RE: Review of > > draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-09) > > > > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > Please see inline. > > > > Cheers, Med > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- De : Stephen Farrell > >> [mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx] Envoyé : mardi 11 avril 2017 > >> 10:51 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; Martin Thomson; > >> ietf@xxxxxxxx Cc : > >> draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Objet : Re: > >> draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits (was RE: Review of draft- > >> mm-wg-effect-encrypt-09) > >> > >> > >> Hi Med, > >> > >> On 11/04/17 09:15, mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>>> I hope that the IETF never publishes > >>>> draft-dolson-plus-middlebox-benefits; it makes claims about > >>>> the benefits of specific solutions for different use cases with > >>>> the goal of justifying those solutions. > >> > >>> [Med] I'm afraid this is speculating about the intent of > >>> draft-dolson. Assured this is not the purpose of that document. > >>> The motivation is to document current practices without including > >>> any recommendation or claiming these solutions are superior to > >>> others. > >> > >> Just to note that I completely agree with Martin's interpretation > >> of the thrust of this draft and I totally fail to see how your > >> argument above can be justified given that draft title, abstract > >> and even filename (and also the content;-). > > > > [Med] "beneficial" is derived from the initial request that motivated > > this draft (excerpt from the abstract): > > > > At IETF97, at a meeting regarding the Path Layer UDP Substrate > > (PLUS) protocol, a request was made for documentation about the > > benefits ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > that might be provided by permitting middleboxes to have some > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > visibility to transport-layer information. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > When the abstract > >> says "This document summarizes benefits" then I cannot interpret > >> that as other than being intended to justify the uses described. > > > > [Med] I would prefer if we can avoid to "interpret", but raise > > questions to the authors if there is a doubt. The document does not > > provide a recommendation or claims this is the only way to achieve > > the technical goals. It does only reflect some deployment reality > > together with some motivations. > > > >> > >> A fairly thorough re-write to aim to describe the pros and cons > >> would be a different and more useful document. > > > > [Med] There are already many RFCs that discuss the issues/cons (I can > > cite this RFC I co-authored https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6269 for > > the CGN case). What is needed IMHO is something else: understand the > > requirements that led to deploy some of these functions. > > > > Similarly a draft > >> that strives to neutrally describe existing reality could maybe be > >> useful (*) > > > > [Med] This is the intent of draft-dolson. > > > > but one that only describes middlebox friends with > >> "benefits" is not IMO beneficial ;-) > > > > [Med] The intent is not to "sell something" but to understand the > > technical needs so that hopefully we can have a reference for future > > solution-oriented discussions. If a given function can be provided > > without involving an on-path device, this would be great for > > operators (optimize CAPEX/OPEX is our motto). > > > >> > >> Cheers, S. > >> > >> (*) That is the argument for draft-mm-effect-encrypt, for which I > >> do support publication (apparently in disagreement with Martin in > >> that case:-) > >> > >> > >> > >