[core] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 16 October 2019 04:02 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: core@ietf.org
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B059E12004D; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-core-hop-limit@ietf.org, Jaime Jimenez <jaime@iki.fi>, core-chairs@ietf.org, jaime@iki.fi, core@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.105.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <157119856571.27890.17758374211784702820.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:02:45 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/94djNEQmwtsrE1JT_f1hZ3NsnmY>
Subject: [core] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:02:46 -0000
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-core-hop-limit/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to everyone who worked on this document. I'm a little surprised that the treatment of loops that go between HTTP and CoAP networks involves a simple observation that detection of such cases simply won't work, without any attempt at mitigation. I'm sympathetic to the observation during WGLC that directly interworking with RFC 8586 isn't feasible, but surprised that more primitive approaches to at least preserving the CoAP Hop-Count as it crossed the HTTP network weren't considered. There are aesthetic discussions to be had around, e.g., defining an HTTP "Hop-Count" header field (which isn't acted on by the HTTP network, but serves the purpose of preserving the value during transit) or overloading the semantics (but not really the meaning) of the HTTP "Max-Forwards" header field, or (in extremis) squirreling the Hop-Count away in the `pseudonym` portion of the inserted HTTP Via header field. But I think the high order bit here is that preserving the Hop-Count value through the HTTP network would be trivial, and would prevent the identified shortcoming of the current mechanism.
- [core] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-co… Adam Roach via Datatracker
- Re: [core] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [core] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-iet… Thomas Fossati