IETF Logo Mail Archive

[core] draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-01

Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de> Tue, 11 December 2018 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <hartke@projectcool.de>
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 8B3D41200B3; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 05:43:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_FAIL=0.001] autolearn=no 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 R9oCMkYSGIcy; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 05:43:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de (wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de [IPv6:2a01:488:42:1000:50ed:8597::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D6F6126BED; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 05:43:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-f180.google.com ([209.85.222.180]); authenticated by wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1gWiK4-0006hH-83; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 14:43:40 +0100
Received: by mail-qk1-f180.google.com with SMTP id 131so8574713qkd.4; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 05:43:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWbeR/tZfIlAvaQML1ZDtTSjtnTwzmwlXWWrz0B3oizaHJrQjrBw Lkz9O/LT3G60wPDq1ewSUrvCFLytmsUQ4spZV6I=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VCN36gUjURxc5kn5aTCpAoFNHMshvJjuDI7czogP3yP42rlFFiUrE/fsPiQn0c++q1MSQtmnyPIq03NL4ikaI=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a5d1:: with SMTP id o200mr14294616qke.328.1544535819143; Tue, 11 Dec 2018 05:43:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <C886421F-B826-427F-B3E6-8B21EC99A474@tzi.org> <CAAzbHvbHUc=o-xN2V9kUHpMumznPZ72w8+3D+QNUM=jPkO=0RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAzbHvbPwRVg0wzZ3JcjyHqLvpXe9yNaCxtjD6MQp5Uj0J6vwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAzbHvZHAk1idjfcQw0c4iUoL0MXzWhd=h5Kk13gJ+oR44Ld=w@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E03CCED@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E03CCED@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 14:43:03 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAAzbHvZE+MjvUCLx5c0T-05mgWs=RmtkwOEntXGi9u5HEMt=5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAzbHvZE+MjvUCLx5c0T-05mgWs=RmtkwOEntXGi9u5HEMt=5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-core-hop-limit@ietf.org
Cc: "core@ietf.org WG" <core@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de; hartke@projectcool.de; 1544535824; 851de493;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1gWiK4-0006hH-83
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/BLNbGgnx2bFW6mSxYCgIeZAVbhM>
Subject: [core] draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-01
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, 11 Dec 2018 13:43:45 -0000

Hi draft-ietf-core-hop-limit authors,

I have taken a brief look at -01. It seems the draft still doesn't
reflect the latest discussions relating to caching.

Here is some proposed text:

OLD:

   The Hop-Limit option is safe to forward. That is, a CoAP proxy which
   does not understand the Hop-Limit option should forward it on.

NEW:

   The Hop-Limit option is safe to forward. That is, a CoAP proxy which
   does not understand the Hop-Limit option should forward it on. The
   option is also part of the cache in this case. That is, a CoAP proxy
   which does not understand the Hop-Limit option must not use a stored
   response unless the value of the Hop-Limit option in the presented
   request is equal to the value of the Hop-Limit option in the request
   used to obtain the stored response.

OLD:

   Otherwise, each intermediate proxy, which understands the Hop-Limit
   option, involved in the handling of a CoAP message MUST decrement
   the Hop-Limit option value by 1 prior to forwarding upstream if this
   parameter exists.

NEW:

   Otherwise, a CoAP proxy which understands the Hop-Limit option MUST
   decrement the value of the option by 1 prior to forwarding it. A
   CoAP proxy which understands the Hop-Limit option MUST NOT use a
   stored response unless the value of the Hop-Limit option in the
   presented request is less than or equal to the value of the
   Hop-Limit option in the request used to obtain the stored response.

OLD:

   +--------+---+---+---+---+------------------+-----------+
   | Number | C | U | N | R | Name             | Reference |
   +--------+---+---+---+---+------------------+-----------+
   |  TBA2  |   |   | x |   | Hop-Limit        | [RFCXXXX] |
   +--------+---+---+---+---+------------------+-----------+

NEW:

   +--------+---+---+---+---+------------------+-----------+
   | Number | C | U | N | R | Name             | Reference |
   +--------+---+---+---+---+------------------+-----------+
   |  TBA2  |   |   |   |   | Hop-Limit        | [RFCXXXX] |
   +--------+---+---+---+---+------------------+-----------+

Best regards,
Klaus

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email