Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-05
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 03 October 2019 06:10 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 9516112084E for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 23:10:19 -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 xTq0IGT_Cfbk for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 23:10:17 -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 0267212008B for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 23:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by opfedar25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 46kN072T3Mz8tR1; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 08:10:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.107]) by opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 46kN071KcWzBrLS; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 08:10:15 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM8F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::74f6:8fc8:b1b8:dbba%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 08:10:14 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Thomas Fossati <Thomas.Fossati@arm.com>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
CC: "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/gIAIFFwAgAAc9wCAANIogA==
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 06:10:14 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303133509C@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>
In-Reply-To: <E2746DFE-FF91-4C4A-96E4-33DA65EF4BDB@arm.com>
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/X_4k3i6SMAur5nve-V3N-mkKjKQ>
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: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 06:10:19 -0000
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] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-core… Scott Bradner via Datatracker
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Jaime Jiménez
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… Thomas Fossati
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [core] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-… mohamed.boucadair