Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 20 January 2014 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D23B1A0263 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:53:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 e1oh6qEylIgN for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:53:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alt-proxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com (alt-proxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com [66.147.245.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A281F1A01F1 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:53:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 30626 invoked by uid 0); 20 Jan 2014 19:53:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy14.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2014 19:53:11 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=DSHGXAAgTcnKI/mZuEAyINj/S3j7si+Wj1wD+WDREPk=; b=PWNudYiKKGv//6aJeyuHeki005I+v7+GJyk2/eoN4T2OI9U+EGx9XVDH+1J8tiZp+PIUn+I5s382yzgU235MTznLHsRj17OdRs63i/DKL9thHGbvI8QASLBIOZ+2/MYa;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:53993 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1W5KuF-0007cw-N2; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:53:11 -0700
Message-ID: <52DD7EA6.2030200@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:53:10 -0500
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Leeyoung <leeyoung@huawei.com>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode@tools.ietf.org>
References: <524AF9A9.3040006@labn.net> <5266E138.8080605@labn.net> <526FFDF8.1060101@labn.net> <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E17291E3DF3@dfweml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <7AEB3D6833318045B4AE71C2C87E8E17291E3DF3@dfweml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call: WSON documents - draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:53:13 -0000

Young, (all),

You have two idnit issues:
  == Missing Reference: 'RWA-INFO' is mentioned on line 198, but not defined
  == Missing Reference: 'RFC 6205' is mentioned on line 779, but not defined

I have just one question on this one:

> - section 2.2.
>    Labels are variable in lengh and need not be 4 bytes long.  This
>    needs to be represented and accounted for in the encodings defined
>    in this section.
> 
> YOUNG>> Agreed. Added the following sentence in Section 2.6 (new section due to shuffling):
>    "Labels are variable in length. The second 32 bit field is a part of the base label used as a
>    starting point in many of the specific formats."
> 

I don't understand what you mean by the "second 32 bit field" are you
referring to the " Additional fields as necessary per action" field
shown on page 14?

Thanks,

Lou