Re: [6lo] draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery: Send a FULL bitmap when datagram is complete?

Martine Lenders <m.lenders@fu-berlin.de> Mon, 21 October 2019 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <m.lenders@fu-berlin.de>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FBCD120838 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P3ROA4DXAnHt for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de (outpost1.zedat.fu-berlin.de [130.133.4.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D520312084D for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de ([130.133.4.69]) by outpost.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.85) for 6lo@ietf.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (envelope-from <m.lenders@fu-berlin.de>) id <1iMYmH-0044Fy-3P>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:35:21 +0200
Received: from mail-oi1-f177.google.com ([209.85.167.177]) by inpost2.zedat.fu-berlin.de (Exim 4.85) for 6lo@ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (envelope-from <m.lenders@fu-berlin.de>) id <1iMYmG-002wWA-Jy>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:35:21 +0200
Received: by mail-oi1-f177.google.com with SMTP id t84so11185298oih.10 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUcYXw1SuxZRX1Zn2WSSx4waCQAakpkhtTLMHuHNLSzhIv2Ryfa C1WH7HvdapVmSLIaISbx46nBiRU4lfbA4mchc2I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyeKB9xlF5HVzHMmgW2kchWj+xlct0NnVhJYSxxIA7izXgOp+mCz8yAVe45W+f6KyhHk8K5WatLoAtrzAPiF1U=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:d882:: with SMTP id p124mr18571705oig.44.1571668519469; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALHmdRy60adS4rkdzgu4b8aBvEVWPk2tN=1ppXcbJNzfuZQg-w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALHmdRy60adS4rkdzgu4b8aBvEVWPk2tN=1ppXcbJNzfuZQg-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martine Lenders <m.lenders@fu-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:34:43 +0200
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CALHmdRwEFCkLgZn9tzKn3v1vO_iA4eHvpy1FLs_czenn1+wOVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALHmdRwEFCkLgZn9tzKn3v1vO_iA4eHvpy1FLs_czenn1+wOVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: 6lo@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cec81505956c9776"
X-Originating-IP: 209.85.167.177
X-ZEDAT-Hint: A
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/0k7c6lT8Z3UIIUggjBwlGUsapl4>
Subject: Re: [6lo] draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery: Send a FULL bitmap when datagram is complete?
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:35:25 -0000

Hi,

sadly, I did not receive an answer for this yet.

Best regards,
Martine

Am Di., 1. Okt. 2019 um 16:31 Uhr schrieb Martine Lenders <
m.lenders@fu-berlin.de>;:

> Hi,
>
> draft-ietf-6lo-fragment-recovery states in section 6.3
>
> [the] might need to abort the process of a fragmented packet for internal
>> reasons, for instance if it […] considers that this packet is already fully
>> reassembled and passed to the upper layer. In that case, the receiver
>> SHOULD indicate so to the sender with a NULL bitmap in a RFRAG
>> Acknowledgment.
>
>
> The given example seems to me the perfect instance to set a FULL bitmap
> instead. There is no other instance were a FULL bitmap is specified to be
> sent, except for the case that the datagram incidentally fills out the
> whole value space of the sequence number field.
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
> Kind regards,
> Martine
>