idnits 2.17.1 draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (September 18, 2012) is 4230 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-pcp-base-26 == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-03 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PCP Working Group M. Boucadair 3 Internet-Draft France Telecom 4 Intended status: Standards Track R. Penno 5 Expires: March 22, 2013 D. Wing 6 Cisco 7 September 18, 2012 9 PCP Description Option 10 draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01 12 Abstract 14 This document extends Port Control Protocol (PCP) with the ability to 15 associate a description with a PCP-instantiated mapping: DESCRIPTION 16 Option. 18 Requirements Language 20 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 21 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 22 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 24 Status of this Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 22, 2013. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 2. Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 3. Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 64 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 66 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 68 1. Introduction 70 This document extends the base PCP [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] with the 71 ability to associate a description with a PCP-instantiated mapping: 72 DESCRIPTION Option. 74 This option can be used in the context of 75 [I-D.ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking]. 77 This option has been defined first in [I-D.boucadair-pcp-extensions]. 79 2. Format 81 This option can be used by a user (or an application) to indicate a 82 description associated with a given mapping such as "FTP server", "My 83 remote access to my CP router", "Camera", "Network attached storage 84 serve", etc. 86 Issues related to the usage of this field for troubleshooting or for 87 any further usage are out of scope of this document. 89 0 1 2 3 90 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 91 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 92 | DESCRIPTION | Reserved | Length | 93 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 94 | Description | 95 : : 96 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 98 This Option: 100 Option Name: Description Option (DESCRIPTION) 101 Number: TBA in the optional-to-process range (IANA) 102 Purpose: Used to associate a text description with a mapping 103 Valid for Opcodes: MAP, PEER 104 Length: Variable 105 May appear in: both request and response 106 Maximum occurrences: 1 108 Figure 1: Description Option 110 Description field carries the description text. 112 3. Behaviour 114 DESCRIPTION Option is optional to be supported by PCP Servers and PCP 115 Clients. 117 This option (Code TBA, Figure 1) MAY be included in a PCP MAP/PEER 118 request to associate a description with the requested mapping. 120 The PCP Server MAY be configurable to accept the DESCRIPTION Option. 121 If the PCP Server does not support the DESCRIPTION Option or it is 122 configured to reject it, received DESCRIPTION Options MUST be ignored 123 by the PCP Server and no DESCRIPTION Option MUST be included in the 124 response. The PCP Server MUST store the content of DESCRIPTION 125 Option only if it supports the DESCRIPTION Option and if it is 126 configured to accept handling DESCRIPTION Options it receives. 128 If the PCP Client does not receive a DESCRIPTION Option in a response 129 to a request enclosing a DESCRIPTION Option, this means the PCP 130 Server does not support that Option. The PCP Client SHOULD avoid 131 including the DESCRIPTION Option in any subsequent request to that 132 PCP Server. 134 If the DESCRIPTION Option is not included in the request, the PCP 135 Server MUST NOT include the DESCRIPTION Option in the associated 136 response. 138 The maximum length SHOULD be configurable in the PCP Server. If a 139 PCP Client includes a DESCRIPTION PCP Option with a length exceeding 140 the maximum length supported by the PCP Server, only the portion of 141 the Description field fitting that maximum length is stored by the 142 PCP Server and returned to the PCP Client in the response. If the 143 PCP Server receives a DESCRIPTION option having a length which does 144 not exceed the maximum value configured, the PCP Server MUST record 145 the complete sequence of the description text and MUST send back to 146 the PCP Client the same DESCRIPTION Option as the one included in the 147 request. 149 The PCP Client MUST NOT include empty DESCRIPTION Option (i.e., 150 Length set to 0) in a request. Empty DESCRIPTION Options MUST be 151 ignored by the PCP Server. 153 4. Security Considerations 155 Security considerations discussed in [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] must be 156 considered. 158 5. IANA Considerations 160 The following PCP Option Codes are to be allocated in the optional- 161 to-process range: 163 DESCRIPTION 165 6. References 167 6.1. Normative References 169 [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] 170 Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P. 171 Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", 172 draft-ietf-pcp-base-26 (work in progress), June 2012. 174 [I-D.ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking] 175 Boucadair, M., Dupont, F., Penno, R., and D. Wing, 176 "Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device 177 (IGD)-Port Control Protocol (PCP) Interworking Function", 178 draft-ietf-pcp-upnp-igd-interworking-03 (work in 179 progress), September 2012. 181 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 182 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 184 6.2. Informative References 186 [I-D.boucadair-pcp-extensions] 187 Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "Some Extensions to 188 Port Control Protocol (PCP)", 189 draft-boucadair-pcp-extensions-03 (work in progress), 190 April 2012. 192 Authors' Addresses 194 Mohamed Boucadair 195 France Telecom 196 Rennes, 35000 197 France 199 Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 200 Reinaldo Penno 201 Cisco 202 USA 204 Email: repenno@cisco.com 206 Dan Wing 207 Cisco Systems, Inc. 208 170 West Tasman Drive 209 San Jose, California 95134 210 USA 212 Email: dwing@cisco.com