Port Control Protocol (PCP) Extension for Port-Set Allocation
draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-13

[Ballot comment]

- section 4, last sentence: I didn't get why this MUST NOT was
needed. I've no clue if it'd be obvious to a PCP implementer
or not though. 4.2 does say though, maybe consider moving the
note up?

- 4.1: size == 0xffff has gotta be operationally dangerous,
I'm surprised you don't have a bunch of caveats on it's use.
Shouldn't you have at least some guidance in 4.2 for that as
well? 6.1 and section 7 cover this though I guess.

- 4.2: Is there a possible troublesome case where the client
asks for parity and gets that but gets fewer ports than
requested? E.g. if client wants 6 with parity and only gets 5,
then the client might not be able to use that as it really
needs 3 pairs of ports. Did you consider saying that a server
has to return an even number of ports if parity is requested?
(Or would that make sense?, I'm not sure:-)

[Ballot comment]
I have a few minor comments and a question:

- Section 4:

How is Port Set Size encoded? (something like unsigned short integer?)

Why might the first internal port  in a response differ from the requested internal port? Even if the server could not map the entire range, wouldn't the first internal port still be the same?

The statement that the internal and external set sizes will always be the same could use some elaboration. I assume this means the set sizes will match after mapping, _not_ that the external set size will always match the _requested_ set size.

-4.1:

should "port preservation" be "parity preservation"? Also, I assume you use port parity in terms of even/odd parity. It might be useful to state that somewhere.

- 4.1: Isn't the statement that PREFER_FAILURE MUST NOT  (which is, btw, redundant with the similar statement in section 4) appear a requirement on the client rather than the server? Is there some server action expected in the (invalid) case that it does?  (Also, you do not merely "not recommend" PREFER_FAILURE. You forbid it.)

Editorial Comments:
=================

- 4.3, first sentence:

The word "unconditionally" doesn't seem to be needed. That it, it doesn't really change anything.

- 6.3, last paragraph:

Is _intentional_ overlap okay?

- 7, first sentence:

There seems to be a missing word in the phrase " In order to prevent a PCP client to control ...". Do you mean "prevent... from controlling"? or "prevent ... from attempting to control"?

[Ballot comment]
Just one question about Port Set Size = 1:

In Section 4.1:

  A PCP client MUST NOT send a PORT_SET option for single-port PCP MAP
  requests (including creation, renewal, and deletion).

...but earlier, in Section 4:

  Port Set Size:  Number of ports requested.  MUST NOT be zero.

Should the Port Set Size definition instead say "MUST be greater than 1.", given what 4.1 says?

...and in Section 4.2:

  o  If the Port Set Size is zero, a MALFORMED_OPTION error is
      returned.

What happens if Port Set Size is 1?  This seems to answer that:

  SHOULD map at least one
  port (which is the same behavior as if Port Set Size is set to 1).

...but how is that allowed, given what Section 4.1 says?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-10. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which IANA must complete.

In the PCP Options subregistry of the Port Control Protocol (PCP) Parameters registry located at

http://www.iana.org/assignments/pcp-parameters/

a new PCP Option is to be registered as follows:

Value: [ TBD-at-Registration; 128-191 range ]
Name: PORT_SET
Purpose: To map sets of ports.
Valid for Opcodes: MAP
Length: 5 bytes
May Appear In: Both requests and responses
Maximum Occurences: 1
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Port Control Protocol (PCP) Extension for Port Set Allocation) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Port Control Protocol WG (pcp)
to consider the following document:
- 'Port Control Protocol (PCP) Extension for Port Set Allocation'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-10-14. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  In some use cases, e.g.,Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) [RFC7596], the
  client may require not just one port, but a port set.  This document
  defines an extension to the Port Control Protocol (PCP) allowing
  clients to manipulate sets of ports as a whole.  This is accomplished
  by a new MAP option: PORT_SET.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-port-set/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-port-set/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Standards Track 

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document defines an extension to the Port Control Protocol (PCP)
  allowing clients to manipulate sets of ports as a whole.  This is
  accomplished by a new MAP option: PORT_SET.

Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

No

Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol?

Yes, two implementations.

Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification?

None besides the two implementations discussed during review.

Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?

Dan Wing and Dave Thaler did a thorough review

If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

Dan Wing and Dave Thaler did a thorough review

Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd?

Reinaldo Penno

Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

Brian Haberman

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

This document was reviewed by the shepherd (me) and I feel it is
ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

No issues

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes, no IPRs

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPRs

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Broad consensus.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No ID nits

https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-09.txt

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

Confirmed

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registries

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

Checked ID nits, MIB and BNF are N/A