Re: [core] Chair's review of draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-03.txt

Christian M. Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> Wed, 20 February 2019 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <christian@amsuess.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 888E5130E8E; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:03:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979] 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 9xdt8XCA1ZPS; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:03:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from prometheus.amsuess.com (alt.prometheus.amsuess.com [IPv6:2a01:4f8:190:3064::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65C6A128B01; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:03:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (095129206250.cust.akis.net [95.129.206.250]) by prometheus.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2690A43569; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:03:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (hermes.amsuess.com [10.13.13.254]) by poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6582E36; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:03:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hephaistos.amsuess.com (hephaistos.amsuess.com [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010::71b]) by poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 271FC6A; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:03:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: (nullmailer pid 27807 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:03:12 -0000
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:03:12 +0100
From: Christian =?iso-8859-1?B?TS4gQW1z/HNz?= <christian@amsuess.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: "core@ietf.org WG" <core@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20190220160311.GA19473@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
References: <963CE8EA-ABAC-488A-8FA6-81431A2E5B06@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <963CE8EA-ABAC-488A-8FA6-81431A2E5B06@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/K7vU4EZho9eF04kr9TCD4T6YyD8>
Subject: Re: [core] Chair's review of draft-ietf-core-echo-request-tag-03.txt
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:03:31 -0000

Hello Carsten,

thanks for the review, addressing the points that are not still being
processed by the authors:


On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 03:58:02PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> * Is "operation" the term we want to use henceforth?

Would "transfer" be more suitable? It's probably well-aligned with
RFC7959's use of the term to just give a precise definition again and
use that.

> * Section 3 is confused about Request-Tag Options and lists of those.
>   Why was the option marked repeatable?

The option is repeatable to allow tiny proxies to satisfy all their
blockwise-handling obligations by adding a per-sender Request-Tag
option. (The alternative would be that they string-append to any
existing Request-Tag option, which is somethign I'd perfer not to do as
an implementor).

That's outlined in section 3.5 but I agree that the wording is far from
straightforward.

> * Title and Abstract.  The title probably should mention CoAP.  The
>   abstract might want to say what the introduction already says: This
>   is for supporting specific use cases (i.e., not all use cases will
>   need these additions).

Addressed in the next version.

> * Introduction.  The introduction could say earlier that Request-Tag
>   is intended exclusively for combination with Block1 options.

Added.

Note that the Request-Tag option can be present in messages that carry
no Block1 option they are later messages of a combined Block1+Block2
oper..ransfer.

> * Section 3 would benefit from explaining that Request-Tag is only
>   meant to be used with Block1 Options in requests.

Added (note as above). Is a MUST NOT be used in response messages
suitable there?


Thanks for your input
Christian


-- 
To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers.
  -- Bene Gesserit axiom