Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect-07:(with DISCUSS)

[Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]>]

Hi, David.

OK.  Let's leave this up to David since he had a view on this also - not
sure if I have seen any responses to -09 from him.

Happy New Year.

Elwyn

On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 20:39 -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Elwyn,
> 
> Yes, I do think that's reasonably obvious, e.g., as I'd expect a Gen-ART reviewer to flag that issue if it wasn't clear in a future specification ;-).  In addition, the proposed text does not allow for possible future uses of the Res bits that do not involve adding data to the Private Data area.
> 
> Thanks, --David +++ Sent from BlackBerry +++
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 08:16 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE: [Gen-art] Fwd: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect-07:(with DISCUSS)
> 
> Hi, David.
> 
> I was thinking of adding to the note in s10 something like:
>   
>   If in future several of the "Res" field bits are in use, care must be
>   taken to specify the layout of the private data area so that the
>   correct data is associated with each option whichever combination of
>   bits are set.
> 
> However, I supose this is really motherhood and apple pie.  I'll live
> with what is there at the moment if you feel this is just too obvious.
> 
> Regards,
> Elwyn
>   
> On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 10:44 -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Hi Elwyn,
> > 
> > Thanks for following up on this.  Regarding ordering of private data:
> > 
> > > However, I think that the
> > > note added to the end of Section 10 regarding the addition of further
> > > 'not-so-private' data perhaps needs another sentence about ordering, as
> > > per my and David's comments.
> > 
> > The text at the end of Section 10 is about possible future protocol enhancements -
> > e.g., if one or more of the Res (currently reserved) bits in the MPA header are
> > used to define future standard elements that are carried in the MPA "Private Data"
> > field (as was done in this draft for enhanced connection establishment data.  I
> > would prefer to defer any specification of ordering of future data additions to
> > the document that defines those additions.
> > 
> > For the current mpa-peer-connect draft, I believe the private data ordering
> > requirements are covered and clear - the enhanced RDMA connection establishment
> > data MUST come first.  Section 6 covers the MPA/TCP case;
> > 
> >    Private Data:  Unchanged from [RFC5044].  However, if the 'S' flag is
> >       set, Private Data MUST begin with enhanced RDMA connection
> >       establishment data (see Section 9).
> > 
> > The 'S' flag is the presence/absence flag for enhanced RDMA connection
> > establishment data, If the 'S' flag is clear, there's no enhanced RDMA
> > connection establishment data, and hence no ordering concern.
> > 
> > Section 7 covers the SCTP case (end of this paragraph):
> > 
> >    The Enhanced DDP stream session establishment follows the same rules
> >    as the standard DDP stream session establishment as defined in
> >    [RFC5043].  ULP-supplied Private Data MUST be included for Enhanced
> >    DDP Stream Session Initiate, Enhanced DDP Stream Session Accept, and
> >    Enhanced DDP Stream Session Reject messages, and MUST follow the
> >    enhanced RDMA connection establishment data in the DDP Stream Session
> >    Initiate and the Enhanced DDP Stream Session Accept messages.
> > 
> > Aside from enhanced RDMA connection establishment data, the only other data
> > that can be carried as Private Data is "ULP-supplied Private Data".
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > --David
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Elwyn Davies
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:11 AM
> > > To: Russ Housley
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; General Area Review Team
> > > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Fwd: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect-07:(with
> > > DISCUSS)
> > > 
> > > Hi, Russ.
> > > 
> > > I hope you have had a good Christmas break.
> > > 
> > > I responded to David Black's previous query about this on December 14
> > > (see attached, copied to you at the time).  However...
> > > 
> > > I have just had a look at the -09 version provoked by David Harrington's
> > > comments.  I think I may have been a little premature in signing off on
> > > that version as the RTR frame discussion did still need improvement.
> > > Verion -09 definitely fixes that issue IMO.  However, I think that the
> > > note added to the end of Section 10 regarding the addition of further
> > > 'not-so-private' data perhaps needs another sentence about ordering, as
> > > per my and David's comments.
> > > 
> > > Apart from that, I believe we are all done here - I have also reviewed
> > > the IANA registries draft in the last couple of days.
> > > 
> > > Best wishes for the New Year.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Elwyn
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 2011-12-23 at 13:17 -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
> > > > Elwyn:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Have your concerns been addressed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Russ
> > > >
> > > > = = = = = = = =
> > > >
> > > > Discuss (2011-09-30)
> > > >
> > > > The Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 26-Sept-2011 raises some
> > > >   concerns that deserve a response.  Please find the review at
> > > >   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg06754.html.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > > From: "David Harrington" <[e-mail]>
> > > > >
> > > > > Date: December 22, 2011 7:12:31 PM EST
> > > > >
> > > > > To: "'Russ Housley'" <[e-mail]>
> > > > >
> > > > > Subject: RE: Russ Housley's Discuss on
> > > > > draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect-07:(with DISCUSS)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Russ,
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you check your DISCUSS on draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect?
> > > > > I believe we have addressed all of Elwyn's concerns.
> > > > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg06754.html.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, and have a Merry Christmas!
> > > > > David Harrington
> > > > > Director, IETF Transport Area
> > > > > [e-mail] (preferred for ietf)
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > [phone] (cell)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> 
>