IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Anima-signaling] else clause in msg processing, or: where are the errors?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 14 October 2016 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima-signaling@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8CC129822; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.996, 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 cJXwujWgjNEA; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0295D12980E; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 06:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFF1200A5; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:13:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B567263AFE; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:58:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2e343772-296a-b885-0193-ff7186f4b055@gmail.com>
References: <12062.1476303921@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <34a6f1c3-9898-f1d8-70a9-60bfb59e21f2@gmail.com> <6843.1476370875@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <2e343772-296a-b885-0193-ff7186f4b055@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:58:52 -0400
Message-ID: <2613.1476453532@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima-signaling/xn9YeDqEkQjxZL1do5mGLf6agE8>
Cc: anima-signaling@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima-signaling] else clause in msg processing, or: where are the errors?
X-BeenThere: anima-signaling@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for the signaling design team of the ANIMA WG <anima-signaling.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima-signaling>, <mailto:anima-signaling-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima-signaling/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima-signaling@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-signaling-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima-signaling>, <mailto:anima-signaling-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:58:56 -0000

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> I notice that we have no protocol versions in GRASP: I'm not sure we
    >> need them though, as for the ASA side of things, we ought to discover
    >> an ASA that speaks the appropriate version.

    > Yes, objectives have unique strings as names so versioning them is
    > easy.

    >>
    >> > Note that in a negotiotion session, we can in fact send M_END with >
    >> option O_DECLINE and an error string at any time.
    >>
    >> Yes, I realized that we could do this for M_REQ_NEG.
    >>
    >> > You are completely correct that this should be specified.
    >>
    >> >> I would rather (3), including the errant session-id.
    >>
    >> Do you have a preference?
    >>

    > I'm still mulling it over. I will definitely put this on the issues
    > list for the end of WGLC. Sheng is concerned that we haven't had enough
    > comment on the WG list.

It's true, and this is one of the problems with design-team lists.

For the benefit of the WG list, my opinion is that we need two revisions of
grasp before it can advance.  I think that this can happen by the end of
November.

I'm happy if we want to publish at this point, knowing that we will revise
the document within a year, once we have a few more ASAs defined.
Otherwise, I feel that there are unknown issues that won't become known
(unknown unknowns..) until some ASAs do their thing.

I found using CBOR for the encoding make life REALLY REALLY easy.
(I used libcbor with C++ and cbor.gem with ruby).  Not, I only implemented
a very simple ASA.

I've done protocols in XML and the like, and even with sophisticated XML
library, it was never as easy as CBOR.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email