Re: [Ietf-behave] Conflicting ICMP payload translation reqs: MUST vs. SHOULD
I full agree with Fernando. I do believe, all normative requirements related to
ICMP should be in the ICMP document and not spread across multiple documents.
Repeating in multiple drafts in different words is prone to language
interpretation problems. I also believe, a NAT MUST rewrite the payload.
As for the requirement in UDP draft (soon to be an RFC) - During the WG last
call when this issue was brought up, folks wanted to leave the requirement in
there so the publication is not delayed (I dont recall discussig the SHOULD vs
MUST for the requirement, however.).
This exception for the UDP draft is understandable. However, the requirement
shoudlnt have to be repeated in the TCP draft. TCP draft could simply refer the
requirement in the ICMP draft rather than list as a distinct TCP requirement.
My 2c.
regards,
suresh
--- Fernando Gont <fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 19:45 24/10/2006, Saikat Guha wrote:
>
> >TCP currently aligns itself with ICMP/MUST because receiving the ICMP
> >messages and being able to link them to the actual connection is
> >essential for path MTU discovery.
> >
> > From my reading of the documents, the requirements in ICMP/TCP and UDP
> >are in conflict.
> >
> >Is there any particular UDP has a SHOULD and not a MUST? If so, should
> >the recommendation be narrowed only to UDP payloads inside ICMP packets?
>
> As a meta comment, I'd suggest that all the ICMP-related stuff be
> included only in the ICMP document, rather than spread it over three
> documents (ICMP, TCP, and UDP).
>
> As for whether to rewrite the ICMP payload is a MUST or SHOULD, I'd
> vote for the "MUST".
>
> Whether one likes it or not, ICMP is a signalling protocol that is
> part of the TCP/IP suite. You cannot just NAT the transport protocol,
> but kill the protocol that aids in signalling error conditions.
>
> If anybody wants to get rid of ICMP, the one should get rid of it for
> "non-NATed" traffic, and only then the NAT-related specs should follow.
>
> Just my two cents,
>
> --
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx || fgont@xxxxxxx
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-behave mailing list
> Ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-behave
>
