Re: [core] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-new-block-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Tue, 04 May 2021 16:58 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.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 977813A126B; Tue, 4 May 2021 09:58:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 qOY-hC6j34OM; Tue, 4 May 2021 09:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (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 123F33A126A; Tue, 4 May 2021 09:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id t3so2532670iol.5; Tue, 04 May 2021 09:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=CFBn143OkCBEAuARM/+DI3F37/2X9wez91waM0csUeE=; b=WIBE1ox2zCSDU62o81b21lomPUSioiCW1VdazXVQAdQjBoE2EACwqAaSiPSL3/TEJd NZbiArwH2umz9bfiCkZaf4hdmzuOZvu4SDASSdCH0m6UXIF976WsCXQFR9B8tdvUH1ee eYOhsZoKz8x9UXvL+/Ei2xKl1WiQRmTv/D8TAVENuVQsocUUkdLEcOy5I2iP4VDKPwhe mV9vhvN+MqhKcULBZmK2QotDojuJ08lFQwqiYbljquShddx/DlY1Jjcd/i1z4GhSImHX ydRqUlsta0eKdNTkhCMygvcwovuRcmwtI8Js1ak3qMce/yM9fM8NzTzz4QSs5OgnDsoh kfvw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CFBn143OkCBEAuARM/+DI3F37/2X9wez91waM0csUeE=; b=A/rzt6NTfaorZJ9i2YNUbtJPk/Jz7N3PGQCU/tNEivxy2ostio3h/YmlvpvpQVXZlV iMxPXAerdkekJcagskuyqvmQTDGnGzqFLf16IDJAyAExjAS1URl7uU7Y9CK/3p8K5FNK 1xkigu0yt73ygk8sST1zilurcbzkKuK/DCP5kBHPKSSm6UElbxz4UP4niaChEkxA9eUP PVdTbkYPgeT7JXSz31Oth7s34RrtusvWgc/M3o8k80DMD3SwhsrJx9mwxJaGKLXNb12N 8A+mfUKJN8SPFMs62T0TTJHTsHPAR0q+1mvr0g/UfJvxyjv76K8LcIsUErnuMnJODiTi NnVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530GmlrQ6FHwr79CH3agYWy3ksE3kIN6qZCgFu0177utrz/hJ+Fq 1EnekK0QZRfr08rpxF2FFi1nQ9tLcmMuW0ME878=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw1UPGGHEZxD30pTbDJ97pq1IbE9UZ77JZQdg0QhOvypFP8evSAc80VAcJKQ/6yFOrSrOkq5/TGae3zryrs8P0=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8ad2:: with SMTP id e18mr19614914iot.51.1620147503725; Tue, 04 May 2021 09:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <161973861706.19975.3092798532288165336@ietfa.amsl.com> <9640_1619783334_608BEEA5_9640_342_16_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353751A9@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAM4esxS7E54VF8PQ=MAPeLJbRi_NY1jZoK15ZWyJhWyE9VVn+Q@mail.gmail.com> <21895_1620118865_60910D51_21895_367_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353764A2@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAM4esxS=q-NRUp4ph8oPjwWhY1uznDqH1p5YQ1WfWTy+TAVERg@mail.gmail.com> <18827_1620145989_60917745_18827_231_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303537688C@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <18827_1620145989_60917745_18827_231_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303537688C@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 09:58:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxS42WUxSTd9DmY3HuqGe6gB_+8uwTCPSFda7dWmQJUGJQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-core-new-block@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-core-new-block@ietf.org>, "core-chairs@ietf.org" <core-chairs@ietf.org>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>, "marco.tiloca@ri.se" <marco.tiloca@ri.se>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007181c605c183fccc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/X8_pLHaiAaI18w_KZcqKiVPyCac>
Subject: Re: [core] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-new-block-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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, 04 May 2021 16:58:31 -0000
Wonderful, that is satisfactory. I will lift my discuss when the changes land. On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 9:33 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: > Re-, > > > > We are not seeking for performance enhancement when determining Q-Block > support. This why I indicated in my first reply that no change to the base > CC is needed for that. We updated the text as follows: > > > > OLD: > > With CoAP over UDP, the way a request message is rejected for > > critical options depends on the message type. A Confirmable message > > with an unrecognized critical option is rejected with a 4.02 (Bad > > Option) response (Section 5.4.1 of [RFC7252]). A Non-confirmable > > message with an unrecognized critical option is either rejected with > > a Reset message or just silently ignored (Sections 5.4.1 and 4.3 of > > [RFC7252]). To reliably get a rejection message, it is therefore > > REQUIRED that clients use a Confirmable message for determining > > support for Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options. > > > > NEW: > > With CoAP over UDP, the way a request message is rejected for > > critical options depends on the message type. A Confirmable message > > with an unrecognized critical option is rejected with a 4.02 (Bad > > Option) response (Section 5.4.1 of [RFC7252]). A Non-confirmable > > message with an unrecognized critical option is either rejected with > > a Reset message or just silently ignored (Sections 5.4.1 and 4.3 of > > [RFC7252]). To reliably get a rejection message, it is therefore > > REQUIRED that clients use a Confirmable message for determining > > support for Q-Block1 and Q-Block2 Options. This CON message can be > > sent under base CoAP congestion control setup specified in > > Section 4.7 of [RFC7252] (that is, NSTART does not need to be > > increased). > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :* Martin Duke [mailto:martin.h.duke@gmail.com] > *Envoyé :* mardi 4 mai 2021 17:28 > *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > *Cc :* The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-core-new-block@ietf.org; > core-chairs@ietf.org; core@ietf.org; marco.tiloca@ri.se > *Objet :* Re: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-new-block-11: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > OK, we've reached understanding on the > NON_PROBING_WAIT/NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT issue. Thank you for the edit. > > > > I also now understand that essentially every connection will have a > Q-block exchange using CON. As this is an integral part of the protocol, I > don't believe it's sufficient for Sec 7.1 to declare congestion control > parameters out of scope, unless there's a normative reference to some other > draft that explains how to do it. > > > > Thanks > > Martin > > > > On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 2:01 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > Please see inline. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :* Martin Duke [mailto:martin.h.duke@gmail.com] > *Envoyé :* lundi 3 mai 2021 20:57 > *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> > *Cc :* The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-core-new-block@ietf.org; > core-chairs@ietf.org; core@ietf.org; marco.tiloca@ri.se > *Objet :* Re: Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-new-block-11: > (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 4:48 AM <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: > > > > > I can't reconcile (4.1) with the last sentence in (7.2). > > [Med] Why? 4.1 can be done with default CoAP setting. The purpose of this > CON request is to determine support of the functionality. We made this > change: > > OLD: > Congestion control for CON requests and responses is specified in > Section 4.7 of [RFC7252]. In order to benefit from faster > transmission rates, NSTART will need to be increased from 1. > However, the other CON congestion control parameters will need to be > tuned to cover this change. This tuning is not specified in this > document given that the applicability scope of the current > specification assumes that all requests and responses using Q-Block1 > and Q-Block2 will be Non-confirmable (Section 3.2). > > NEW: > Congestion control for CON requests and responses is specified in > Section 4.7 of [RFC7252]. In order to benefit from faster > transmission rates, NSTART will need to be increased from 1. > However, the other CON congestion control parameters will need to be > tuned to cover this change. This tuning is not specified in this > document given that the applicability scope of the current > specification assumes that all requests and responses using Q-Block1 > and Q-Block2 will be Non-confirmable (Section 3.2) apart from the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > initial Q-Block functionality negotiation. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Does the functionality negotiation in (4.1) involve something other than > sending Q-Block options? > > *[Med] No. All what is needed is to send the options in a CON message as > per: * > > > > To indicate support for Q-Block2 responses, the CoAP client MUST > > include the Q-Block2 Option in a GET or similar request (FETCH, for > > example), the Q-Block2 Option in a PUT or similar request (POST, for > > example), or the Q-Block1 Option in a PUT or similar request so that > > the server knows that the client supports this Q-Block functionality > > should it need to send back a body that spans multiple payloads. > > Otherwise, the server would use the Block2 Option (if supported) to > > send back a message body that is too large to fit into a single IP > > packet [RFC7959]. > > > > If so, then (4.1) ought to clarify that it's what you mean. If it's just a > GET or whatever, then the text here is fine, but there needs to be more on > congestion control for confirmable messages. > > > > > Moreover, if > > my reading of (4.1) is correct, it's not sufficient to declare > > congestion control guidance out of scope when it's a mandated part of > > the protocol. > > > > > > > - (7.2) If NON_PROBING_WAIT and NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT both "have the > > same value as computed for EXCHANGE_LIFETIME", why are they different > > variables? > > [Med] Because they refer to distinct aspects that may be tweaked > separately: the timeout induced by PROBING_RATE and the one to observe for > expired partial bodies. > > Or is that they SHOULD have the same value but might not? > > A normative word would be helpful here. > > [Med] Not sure a change is needed here given the definition of the two > parameters. > > > > But they can't be tweaked separately! The spec states that they are both > computed as EXCHANGE_LIFETIME. It does not allow for them to be set > separately. > > *[Med] Ah, I see what confuses you. We made this change:* > > > > *OLD:* > > NON_PROBING_WAIT is used to limit the potential wait needed > > calculated when using PROBING_RATE. NON_PROBING_WAIT has the same > > value as computed for EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]). > > > > NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT is used for expiring partially received bodies. > > NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT has the same value as computed for > > EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]). > > > > *NEW:* > > NON_PROBING_WAIT is used to limit the potential wait needed > > calculated when using PROBING_RATE. By default, NON_PROBING_WAIT has > > the same value as EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]). > > > > NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT is used for expiring partially received bodies. > > By default, NON_PARTIAL_TIMEOUT has the same value as > > EXCHANGE_LIFETIME (Section 4.8.2 of [RFC7252]). > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > >
- [core] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-core-n… Martin Duke via Datatracker
- Re: [core] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-co… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [core] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-co… Martin Duke
- Re: [core] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-co… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [core] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-co… Martin Duke
- Re: [core] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-co… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [core] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-co… Martin Duke