Re: [core] Review Comments on draft-boucadair-core-hop-limit

<> Wed, 12 September 2018 08:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6671294D7; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 01:19:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CzHcq-6C4HZ0; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 01:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 129C5130E42; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 01:19:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.66]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 429F6t3VyFz4x4d; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:19:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.43]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 429F6t2hf4z8sY1; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:19:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM5F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::e172:f13e:8be6:71cc%18]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 10:19:02 +0200
From: <>
To: Jim Schaad <>, "" <>
CC: 'core' <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Review Comments on draft-boucadair-core-hop-limit
Thread-Index: AdQ6lZtWzVfWrqOXTka5fHNwSfnzLwP0eWXw
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:19:01 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302DFDEB7E@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <008c01d43a98$7beb5f90$73c21eb0$>
In-Reply-To: <008c01d43a98$7beb5f90$73c21eb0$>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] Review Comments on draft-boucadair-core-hop-limit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:19:10 -0000

Hi Jim, all, 

Thank you for sharing the comments.

Please see inline. 


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jim Schaad []
> Envoyé : jeudi 23 août 2018 06:19
> À :
> Cc : 'core'
> Objet : Review Comments on draft-boucadair-core-hop-limit
> Section 3 - para 2 - It would be clearer to me to say that the Hop-Limit
> value is between 0 and 255 inclusive rather than talk about the length of
> the option because I don't know if that includes all of the option encoding
> bytes or not.

[Med] Done in my local copy. 

> Section 3 - para 4 - Probably does not matter, but the current algorithm
> wastes one bit.  Check for 0 and then decrement would give one addition
> possible field.  It would also compress down the size of the encoded option
> faster.
> Section 3 - I don't know that you only want to have a proxy information
> appearing once.  If it appears multiple times then you can easily spot the
> loop.  No real option one way or the other.

[Med] We had that restrictions for two reasons:
- ease correlation between hop count and the information recorded in the body.
- maintain a reasonable message size. 

> Section 3 - Last paragraph - I presume that a border proxy could remove
> rather than re-write the option as well.  This would be esp. true if for
> example it was changing transports.

[Med] Yes, fixed in my local copy. 

> Section 4.2 - Someplace there needs to be a discussion on why the values of
> C, U and N
> I would have expected the values to be
> - Critical - no

[Med] Agree. 

> - Unsafe - no - a proxy which does not understand the option should still
> forward it on.  At worst you will get the same behavior as if the option was
> not included.

[Med] We set it to "Unsafe - yes" for the DOTS case because the proxies are under the control of the same entity and we wanted to have something reliable. I do agree that for the general CoAP case, we can relax that to "Unsafe - no"

> - NoCacheKey - yes - If you get two gets for the same resource with
> different hop counts the proxy should still be able to return the currently
> cached value.

[Med] Will add some text to explain the rationale for setting the C/U/N values. Thanks. 

> Section 5 - There is a potential privacy consideration that may need to be
> covered.  The return value is going to provide an eavesdropper a large
> amount of information on the configuration of the network.  Is there value
> to configuring so that the error but not the trace stack is provided?

[Med] Good point. There is still a value in returning the error even without the trace as this allows a peer to know why a request failed. Proxies at boundaries are supposed to generate alarms to administrators.

We can consider adding the following: 
- a proxy which is located at the boundary of an administrative domain may be instructed to strip the diagnostic payload or part of it before forwarding 5.06 upstream.