![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Rémi -
(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 isRECOMMENDED 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 itmake 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 sensefor all future transport protocols. [...]
I don't agree. A reason for recommending endpoint-independent mapping and filtering is to enable applications to refer each other to a host behind a NAT.
This is desirable independent of the transport protocol.
(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 aNAT includes ALGs, the NAT MUST NOT affect DCCP packets that areprocessed by one of those ALGs." Suggest to reword the requirementin 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.
Make it even clearer:
REQ-6: If a NAT includes ALGs, the ALGs MUST NOT affect DCCP.
- Christian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.