Re: [Dots] [core] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-core-new-block (No-Response)

[Christian Amsüss <[e-mail]>]

Hello Med,

> The text we have in the draft does not preclude No-Response (or any
> solution that will be endorsed by the WG in the future): 
> 
> If both endpoints support No-Response, they can use it as a "signal in
> the MAX_PAYLOADS" to trigger a 2.31 mentioned in the last sentence. 
>
> As we don't recommend No-Response (for reasons echoed in your
> message), it is not worth to include much more details on how
> No-Response can be used.  

The only reason for No-Response I echo in my mail is the downref, and
merely showing how these can interoperate does not create a normative
reference. It's quite a stretch to assume people would read "requires an
additional signal" as "could use No-Response".

Working group documents time and again have outward references like "One
way of doing this is being explored in [draft-...]", which is clearly
non-normative, but at the same time allow the reader to get at least
*some* indication of how things are meant to be used.

What makes things worse here is that as long as this specification does
not mention No-Response at all, it is not ensured that it interoperates
well at all with No-Response; thus even if a reader can make the jump,
they'd have to figure out on their own that it's probably best if
No-Response overrides the response behavior of Q-Block.

>       The use of NON is thus superior but requires
>       an additional signal in the MAX_PAYLOADS packet to seek for a 2.31
>       (Continue) from the peer if it is ready to receive the next set of
>       blocks.

I missed that in the part where I'm asking for whether 2.31 would be
produced. That paragraph really opens more questions than it answers: If
Q-Block is intended to be usable with something to signal that now would
be a good time for a response, then this almost contradicts the "2.31
(Continue) Response is not used in the current version" statement.

Either this is a possibility already planned here, then the 2.31 cases
should be properly described, even if it's just with a "but requires
additional signaling, which for example can be achieved by combining
this with No-Response:0". Or it's not planned out here, then the 2.31
mentioned in the quoted note is more of a note on future updates of
Q-Block that would be necessary to leverage that combination (but I
don't see any such document happening).

Best regards
Christian

-- 
To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers.
  -- Bene Gesserit axiom