Re: Protocol Draft - PathDataTLV

Patrick Droz <dro@zurich.ibm.com> Fri, 04 April 2008 10:00 UTC

Message-Id: <FRI.4.APR.2008.120031.0200.>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:00:31 +0200
From: Patrick Droz <dro@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM Research Division
Subject: Re: Protocol Draft - PathDataTLV
Comments: To: Avri Doria <avri@psg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms070905040909030203080600"

Hi Avri,

yes, this is fine with me.

Regards,
Patrick

Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as long as it is ok with the group and the shepherd, I will save up all
> the changes for a post IETF LC release.
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 1 Apr 2008, at 21:48, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>> Greetings Evangelos,
>>
>> Much thanks for the review; comments below.
>>
>> On Mon, 2008-31-03 at 22:56 +0300, Evangelos Haleplidis wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>> 1. Path-Data-TLV is the only TLV (besides KEYINFO-TLV) that is not
>>> depicted
>>> as a graph in the document. While it is described, it would be good for
>>> consistency to be seen. In the end of the document I include an example.
>>
>> Looks usable to me. If there are no objections from the other authors,
>> we should include it.
>>
>>> 2. In the second text the part "when PATH flags are 00" should be
>>> changed to
>>> "when PATH flags are 0x00", unless there was intended as 0b00. It
>>> should be
>>> specified however for clarity.
>>
>> I think that paragraph is a bit confusing; please refer to the other
>> text I am suggesting below to replace that section.
>>
>>> 3. About Selector Bit, in which position does it exist in the flags?
>>> I guess
>>> it should be the first. However I think it should be documented for
>>> clarity
>>> purposes (I also include a graph in the end of the mail).
>>>
>>
>> Hrm. Good catch. Our implementation has it at the other end. i.e. bit 15
>> May i suggest we put it there?
>>
>>> 4. I don't understand exactly what the text in page 48 regarding
>>> FullData
>>> TLVs mean. If PathFlags!=0x00 then the FullData MUST contain inside
>>> the V
>>> the row besides the value, the index of the row (fifth row for
>>> example)? But
>>> if PathFlags==0x00 then it MAY contain that OR the row will be
>>> specified in
>>> the Path (IDs)? While I searched I did not see an example in the
>>> document,
>>> or perhaps I was searching wrong.
>>
>> This is the same in concern of #2. So for both #2 and #4 here's text
>> which i think provides more clarity.
>>
>> -------------
>> When a table is referred to in the PATH (IDs) of a PATH-DATA-TLV,
>> then the FULLDATA's "V" will contain all of that table's row contents.
>> Refer to blah for an example of this.
>> It is possible to reference a specific single row by appending
>> to the PATH (IDs) the index of the specific table row. For an
>> example of this refer to blah. If a a table row is referenced
>> in this way then in order to avoid ambiguity, the PATH flags must
>> MUST ensure that the content selection flag (F_SELKEY) is not set.
>> Setting F_SELKEY will result in blah error.
>> -------
>>
>> I will look up the examples and replace the blahs.
>> By not specifying the 00 leaves us room in the future should we add more
>> flags to be make sure those are not zeroed out when needed..
>>
>> Does this provide more clarity?
>>
>> Thanks again for the scrutiny.
>>
>> cheers,
>> jamal
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--
   Dr. Patrick Droz                  | dro@zurich.ibm.com
   IBM Zurich Research Laboratory    | http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~dro
   Saumerstrasse 4                   | Tel. +41-44-724-85-25
   CH-8803 Rueschlikon/Switzerland   | Fax. +41-44-724-85-78