Re: [Ietf-behave] Conflicting ICMP payload translation reqs:MUSTvs.SHOULD
> > Given that the UDP draft is in the RFC Editor Queue, and the
> > ICMP and TCP documents are not even assigned to a shepherding
> > AD in the tracker yet, your best path forward really may be
> > to issue UDP, UPDATE it with ICMP, and refer to ICMP for
> > the ICMP requirements supporting TCP... assuming that the TCP
> > draft doesn't pass the ICMP draft in the chute.
>
> Yes, I agree that's what we should do. ICMP's text can
> clearly indicate this one UDP requirement that it's updating
> from Should to Must.
I do not agree with the rationale for this argument. We can see two
different set of problems, and they have different solutions:
1) Specify how the NAT will translate ICMP packets, either incoming or
outgoing: this belongs logically to the ICMP specification.
2) Specify how the translation state for another protocol is affected by
the reception of UDP packets: this belongs logically in the
specification of that protocol.
For example, the reaction of TCP to "soft errors" or "hard errors"
belongs in TCP, not in ICMP.
-- Christian Huitema
