IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-01

Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de> Wed, 12 December 2018 12:58 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 8D11B126F72; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 04:58:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_FAIL=0.001] 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 T5KizrpNqC_d; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 04:58:46 -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 D8AA1126DBF; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 04:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-f173.google.com ([209.85.222.173]); authenticated by wp382.webpack.hosteurope.de running ExIM with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) id 1gX467-0001R2-81; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:58:43 +0100
Received: by mail-qk1-f173.google.com with SMTP id o125so10646623qkf.3; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 04:58:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWZ8xJ1WliKGp38oqkPpZA9L5FwrmN3wH1OB19e9RUyGAmhauHLC X5DbVYkxL445Pjul+jkDGGuBOo/37izIO5mhaLc=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/WkduTzNaexHbzeDM1AouBEMe7W3Y4Lls8KTur/wBw9qI+rR8RQYOjqrm1ZP6ElZ9+b5xwgzf4GcHfSSrrWfso=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a84b:: with SMTP id r72mr18605921qke.2.1544619522169; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 04:58:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <C886421F-B826-427F-B3E6-8B21EC99A474@tzi.org> <CAAzbHvbHUc=o-xN2V9kUHpMumznPZ72w8+3D+QNUM=jPkO=0RA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAzbHvbPwRVg0wzZ3JcjyHqLvpXe9yNaCxtjD6MQp5Uj0J6vwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAzbHvZHAk1idjfcQw0c4iUoL0MXzWhd=h5Kk13gJ+oR44Ld=w@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E03CCED@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAAzbHvZE+MjvUCLx5c0T-05mgWs=RmtkwOEntXGi9u5HEMt=5w@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E056CF9@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAAzbHva5__dPkE2s05fOayx-jf3EBpk3C8=jODKptg0J6q_Jbw@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E057537@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302E057537@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Klaus Hartke <hartke@projectcool.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:58:06 +0100
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAAzbHvaHBuZUa1z0E2egUMfH_ncHs2YMdJ0OOp-Lc7F+eAzskA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAzbHvaHBuZUa1z0E2egUMfH_ncHs2YMdJ0OOp-Lc7F+eAzskA@mail.gmail.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: "core@ietf.org WG" <core@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-core-hop-limit@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-bounce-key: webpack.hosteurope.de; hartke@projectcool.de; 1544619525; 2d29173b;
X-HE-SMSGID: 1gX467-0001R2-81
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/tjGhDNqCzF6JvY4hAQfzLBuIYus>
Subject: Re: [core] draft-ietf-core-hop-limit-01
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, 12 Dec 2018 12:58:47 -0000

Mohamed Boucadair wrote:
> What about the following NEW wording:
>
>    The Hop-Limit option is safe to forward.  That is, a CoAP proxy which
>    does not understand the Hop-Limit option should forward it on.  The
>    option is also part of the cache

... key.

> As such, a CoAP proxy

... which does not understand the Hop-Limit option ...

> must follow
>    the recommendations in Section 5.7.1 of [RFC7252] for caching.

>> The option properties of safe-to-forward and part-of-the-cache-key
>> only apply to the case where an intermediary does not understand the
>> option, so the draft needs to be specific about the case when it is
>> understood.
>
> Deal.

đź‘Ť

Klaus

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email