Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping mid=122

"Jon Shallow" <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com> Mon, 06 August 2018 07:56 UTC

From: Jon Shallow <supjps-ietf@jpshallow.com>
To: "'Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy'" <TirumaleswarReddy_Konda@mcafee.com>, dots@ietf.org
References: <05de01d42bea$66b4bed0$341e3c70$@jpshallow.com> <BN6PR16MB1425F9B6326B79073BD73710EA200@BN6PR16MB1425.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR16MB1425F9B6326B79073BD73710EA200@BN6PR16MB1425.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 08:56:20 +0100
Message-ID: <070401d42d5a$f62651c0$e272f540$@jpshallow.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0705_01D42D63.57EBCB30"
Thread-Index: AQFiIA9vunyZvXsYpGOQ6QYAChE5AwGq042rpYkcn3A=
Content-Language: en-gb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/BA936yznG59Ai06kHL0q1e7cQAc>
Subject: Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping mid=122
Precedence: list

Hi Tiru,

 

Please see inline Jon>

 

Regards

 

Jon

 

From: Dots [mailto: dots-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
Sent: 06 August 2018 04:08
To: Jon Shallow; dots@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping mid=122

 

Hi Jon,

 

Please see inline [TR] 

 

From: Dots <dots-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jon Shallow
Sent: Saturday, August 4, 2018 5:28 PM
To: dots@ietf.org
Subject: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping mid=122

 


CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

  _____  

Hi there,

 

What happens when we receive mid=123, followed by mid=122 that overlaps mid=123?

 

Do we put mid=122 into an active-but-terminating state?

- state 5 is not really correct here as per the description

 

[TR] In the previous threads we have already discussed to add new conflict-status for conflicting mitigation requests from the same DOTS client (e.g. conflict-status MSB set to 1 means conflict from different DOTS clients, MSB set to 0 means conflict from the same DOTS client). 

Jon> I may have blinked, but do not recall this particular discussion about using MSB and therefor needs to get into the draft.  An alternative is to have a different variable for same/different DOTS client.

The mitigation request with mid=122 will be rejected with 4.09 conflict. I don’t get your comment, why put mid=122 into active-but-terminating state ?

Jon> This potential option of what to return was written before we focused in on the single case for active-but-terminating.

 

Do we return 4.09 conflict with an appropriate (perhaps new) conflict-status ?

 

[TR] Yes

 

- my preference, but this is not said anywhere I can find

 

[TR] we will update the draft.

Jon> Thanks

 

- should conflict-scope also include the ‘mid’ in the list (YANG)?

 

[TR] Yes, including mid can help troubleshooting.

Jon> Please include it in the draft.

~Jon

 

Do we return 4.00 (bad request)?

 

[TR] No. 

 

-Tiru

 

- I do not really like this one as there is no indication as to why – especially of there was an out of sequence packet arrival at the DOTS server.

 

Regards

 

Jon

[Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping mid=… Jon Shallow
Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping … Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping … Jon Shallow
Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping … Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping … mohamed.boucadair
Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping … Jon Shallow
Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping … Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping … mohamed.boucadair
Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping … Konda, Tirumaleswar Reddy
Re: [Dots] WGLC Signal: mid=123 then overlapping … mohamed.boucadair