Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou,

> > The bottom line here appears to be:
> > - leave updates 4872
> 
> > - remove updates 2205, 3209, 3473
> 
> Are you sure about this?  Other RFCs that provide incremental functions
> that are not required by all implementations identify the base protocol
> in the Updates field. For example, take a look at rfc5151 it says both
> 3209 and 3473 are updated.

Are you sure the authors of 5151 did not intend that all new implementations of
3209 and 3473 should include full support for 5151?

But I can see that there may have been confusion in the WG consensus on this
point if there is lack of clarity about what "updates" means in the header. My
view is that "updates" means "this becomes part of the protocol spec originally
stated by the updated RFC". It is quite possible that this has not been
applied/enforced in the past, and I am currently hunting for a definitive
reference (if I can't find one, I will have to run some IETF process to create a
clear definition of "updates" for future use).

> >>> Section 4.1
[snip]
> How about:
> 
>   This field contains a value that is a unique global identifier or the
>   special value zero (0).  When non-zero and not overridden by local
>   policy, the Global_ID as defined in [RFC6370] SHALL be used.
>   The special value of zero indicates that no global identifier is
>   present. Note that a Global Association Source of zero SHOULD be
>   limited to entities contained within a single operator.

Yes. Thanks.

> >>> Section 4.1
[snip]
> >> How about:
> >>    Extended Association ID: variable, 4-byte aligned
> >>
> >>       This field contains data that is additional information to support
> >>       unique identification.  The length and contents of this field is
> >>       determined by the Association Source.  The length of this field
> >>       is derive from the object Length field and as such MUST have a
> >>       zero length or be 4-byte aligned.  A zero length indicates that
> >>       this field is omitted.
> >
> > Still having trouble with "determined by".  Try "dependent on".
> 
> how about "scoped by"

Yes.

Many thanks,
Adrian