Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-05

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 15 October 2019 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF83A120119 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 07:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 K4KGZf_qTtAL for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 07:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BB9E120074 for <core@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 07:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.7]) by opfedar27.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 46syG92J1Rz2xkV; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:18:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.29]) by opfedar05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 46syG91Zvpz2xCG; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:18:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM21.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 16:18:41 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-05
Thread-Index: AQHVdQ3cxz1ZxJqNj0yuIPX0f/hVzqc/Wy4AgAAOBwCAAAm/gIAIFFwAgAAc9wCAANIogIATZS9Q
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:18:40 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303133EC45@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <156954173082.31982.2465512704956520690@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330313276CF@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <A63F6779-653D-4DC6-9A79-E3983A742714@sobco.com> <20190927114946.igkh7f3evmclwt4p@EMB-918HFH01> <30446701-ADE2-4231-A987-CB6AE906A3E8@tzi.org> <32D7B28B-682A-4EAC-80D3-2CF15D2BE4FE@tzi.org> <E2746DFE-FF91-4C4A-96E4-33DA65EF4BDB@arm.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303133509C@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303133509C@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/7cO8LiUZPIXVffKBA0dmjsvXUvM>
Subject: Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-05
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:18:47 -0000

Hi all, 

The change proposed by Thomas is sensible. 

Since no objection was raised, we will implement the following change in -07:

OLD:
    CoAP proxies that do not have specific knowledge that proxy
    forwarding loops are avoided in some other way, MUST
    implement this option and have it enabled by default.

NEW:
    New CoAP proxies MUST implement this option and have it
    enabled by default.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : core [mailto:core-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de
> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> Envoyé : jeudi 3 octobre 2019 08:10
> À : Thomas Fossati; Carsten Bormann
> Cc : core@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-05
> 
> Hi Thomas, all,
> 
> Now that the WG went for a "MUST", I think that your proposed wording is
> much better.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : core [mailto:core-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Thomas Fossati
> > Envoyé : mercredi 2 octobre 2019 18:31
> > À : Carsten Bormann
> > Cc : core@ietf.org
> > Objet : Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-
> 05
> >
> > Hi Carsten,
> >
> > [trimming the CC list to CoRE only]
> >
> > On 02/10/2019, 16:47, "core on behalf of Carsten Bormann" <core-
> > bounces@ietf.org on behalf of cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> > > In the CoRE Virtual Interim we just had (minutes to be posted), we
> > > said that the WG wouldn’t have a problem with changing the “are
> > > expected to” (implement and default-enable) in Section 1.1 into a
> > > stronger MUST.  This would still leave the option for a Proxy operator
> > > to turn off the use of the Option, i.e., a receiver cannot rely on
> > > actually receiving it.  Let’s wait for the ADs to chime in on that…
> >
> > Having thought a bit more on the specific change that was discussed
> > during the interim:
> >
> >    CoAP proxies that do not have specific knowledge that proxy
> >    forwarding loops are avoided in some other way, MUST
> >    implement this option and have it enabled by default.
> >
> > I think this should be tweaked further.
> >
> > How I read the sentence is: "You can't deploy a proxy box that can
> > potentially be part of a forwarding loop, if that box is not able to
> > understand and process the option."
> >
> > Trouble is that the conditional clause looks implausible in general - it
> > seems to presume divination skills.
> >
> > If we want this option to be part of the future CoAP ecosystem (which I
> > think is a good thing), we should just say something like:
> >
> >    Newly deployed CoAP proxies MUST implement this option and have it
> >    enabled by default.
> >
> > One of the good properties about this option IIUC is that even one
> > implementer can make a difference -- i.e., you don't need fork-lift
> > upgrades to start getting some benefit.
> >
> > Cheers, t
> >
> >
> > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
> > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy
> the
> > information in any medium. Thank you.
> > _______________________________________________
> > core mailing list
> > core@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core