Re: [core] Chair's review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-02.txt
Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de> Tue, 26 February 2019 11:20 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 A0916130E0A; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 03:20:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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 otIdPohDyNRf; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 03:19:58 -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 28833130EC7; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 03:19:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-f172.google.com ([209.85.160.172]); authenticated by wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1gyamB-0000Uz-L3; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:19:55 +0100
Received: by mail-qt1-f172.google.com with SMTP id o6so14336267qtk.6; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 03:19:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuagrXvCkA+y0maVJpK0fSg/7sWFbeL0xIB1O1tBiViBO/K6PVQU Mu3EOl4g9g81MajwRZ8BaaQdBXBzH72AXGkzOGs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYP/mdVElfHeaNF1u36U/TwTvgAzSr4CWG4A00QNNKZNMK5KpYIWN85ipbX681IQVq3BCr4k+lO4Wrtsxb0Oe0=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:81b4:: with SMTP id 49mr17329551qvd.144.1551179994469; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 03:19:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7185933E-6816-435E-B668-2DB1367C279E@tzi.org> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA23CEA@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA23CEA@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:19:18 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAAzbHvYOM2R6GJg2uA8NYy1cz9nerHvF6U+JnnamnfoQD636HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAzbHvYOM2R6GJg2uA8NYy1cz9nerHvF6U+JnnamnfoQD636HQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, core <core@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-core-hop-limit@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-core-hop-limit@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de; hartke@projectcool.de; 1551179998; 9fb11adc;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1gyamB-0000Uz-L3
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/o3omV1OevyphEB7hBgkfQlf2pjo>
Subject: Re: [core] Chair's review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-02.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: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 11:20:01 -0000
Mohamed Boucadair wrote: > Carsten Bormann wrote: > > 2. I don't understand the rule about using cached copies. As a > > general observation, rules like this should not simply be stated > > without a rationale why they are the way they are. I assume you're referring to this rule: 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. (This matches the language in [1].) Let's say proxy receives a request and has a matching Hop Limit Reached error response in its cache. If the hop limit in the request is equal to the hop limit in the request for the stored response, then the stored error response can be returned. If the hop limit is less, then the stored error response can also be returned. (If 6 hops are not enough to reach the server, then 3 hops are also not enough.) If the hop limit is greater, then the stored error response cannot be returned. (The server might not be reachable in 6 hops, but it might be reachable in 7 hops.) (This assumes that the number of hops to reach a server doesn't change. If it changes, then a stored error response might be served incorrectly until its max-age expires.) I have to admit that I never checked if this also makes sense for stored responses that are not a Hop Limit Reached error response... Klaus [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252#section-5.6
- [core] Chair's review of draft-ietf-core-hop-limi… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] Chair's review of draft-ietf-core-hop-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [core] Chair's review of draft-ietf-core-hop-… Jim Schaad
- Re: [core] Chair's review of draft-ietf-core-hop-… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [core] Chair's review of draft-ietf-core-hop-… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [core] Chair's review of draft-ietf-core-hop-… Klaus Hartke
- Re: [core] Chair's review of draft-ietf-core-hop-… mohamed.boucadair