Re: [core] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06: (with COMMENT)
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Fri, 11 October 2019 07:59 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 70241120091; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:59:01 -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 Neyhq1r6uHSp; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:58:59 -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 4066A120043; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar05.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.7]) by opfedar23.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 46qL1s4bKXzBrwt; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:58:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.92]) by opfedar05.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 46qL1s396wz2xC2; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:58:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e878:bd0:c89e:5b42]) by OPEXCAUBM34.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::7873:1668:636f:52c%21]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:58:57 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-core-hop-limit@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-core-hop-limit@ietf.org>, Jaime Jimenez <jaime@iki.fi>, "core-chairs@ietf.org" <core-chairs@ietf.org>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVf/7aOEsaz54iTkuklEafqlbE+adU/kCg
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 07:58:56 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303133C8B1@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <157077606125.20455.11752074619038685184.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <157077606125.20455.11752074619038685184.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/drijTrh1bp68MxBWk6KTpQ_KKog>
Subject: Re: [core] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06: (with 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: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 07:59:02 -0000
Hi Eric, Thank you for the review. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Éric Vyncke via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org] > Envoyé : vendredi 11 octobre 2019 08:41 > À : The IESG > Cc : draft-ietf-core-hop-limit@ietf.org; Jaime Jimenez; core- > chairs@ietf.org; jaime@iki.fi; core@ietf.org > Objet : Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-06: (with > COMMENT) > > Éric Vyncke 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for the work put into this document. I have a couple of COMMENTs > (that I would appreciate to see a reply of yours) and one NIT. > > Regards, > > -éric > > == DISCUSS == > > == COMMENTS == > > -- Section 3 -- > C.1) "Because forwarding errors may occur if inadequate Hop-Limit values > are used, proxies at the boundaries of an administrative domain MAY > be instructed to remove or rewrite the value of Hop-Limit carried in > received messages" Isn't this remove all usefulness of the Hop-Limit > option ? [Med] This is warranted in the next sentence: "This modification should be done with caution in case proxy-forwarded traffic repeatedly crosses the administrative domain boundary in a loop and so Hop-Limit detection gets broken." Basically, the decision will be deployment-specific. E.g., if the boundary proxy is the only proxy to be invoked before reaching the ultimate CoAP endpoint, striping the option may be OK. > > C.2) table 1, suggest to state the value of the C, U, N, R properties [Med] The option is elective, safe-to-forward, part of the cache, and not repeatable. So, none of C, U, N, R is marked with "x" in the table. > > -- Section 4 -- > C.3) while I understand why a proxy should not add its own diagnostic > information when packet should become larger than the MTU of the next link, > I > wonder what will happen downstream when the MTU will be exceeded... [Med] The behavior of the proxy will take into account the "Path" MTU not the link MTU: Note that an intermediate proxy prepends its information only if there is enough space as determined by the Path MTU (Section 4.6 of [RFC7252]). ^^^^^^^^ With that assumption, I don't see any MTU issue when forwarding the packet downstream. No? > > C.4) suggest to use normative language (uppercase MAY, MUST, ...) > [Med] We used to have more normative language in that section but cleaned it as a result of this WGLC comment: ======== > > 3. "To ease debugging and troubleshooting, the CoAP proxy which > > detects a loop SHOULD include its information ... Each intermediate > > proxy involved in relaying a TBA1 (Hop Limit Reached) error message > > SHOULD prepend its own information" - Is it really a protocol > > violation if I want to configure my proxy not to include any > > information? > > > > [Med] It is not a protocol violation if the information is not included - hence the SHOULD. However it makes diagnosing the issue more difficult. We briefly discussed this in the interim yesterday and came to the conclusion that having a normative requirement here isn't needed. It seems more like a suggestion for a good quality of implementation. I propose to remove any use of KEYWORDs here. ========== > == NITS == > > -- Section 3 -- > N.1) s/if a less value/if a smaller value/ ? [Med] Fixed. Thank you.
- [core] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-c… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
- Re: [core] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ie… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [core] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ie… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [core] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ie… mohamed.boucadair