Re: [Idr] Error handling in draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-10.txt
Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com> Wed, 24 February 2010 00:03 UTC
Return-Path: <enkechen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B5E63A84C2 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:03:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y73U+v-ApQkh for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:03:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C3D43A8406 for <idr@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:03:55 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,528,1262563200"; d="scan'208";a="155746347"
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.223.137]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Feb 2010 00:06:00 +0000
Received: from dhcp-171-71-139-199.cisco.com (dhcp-171-71-139-199.cisco.com [171.71.139.199]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o1O060mQ013685; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:06:00 GMT
Message-ID: <4B846D68.2000406@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:06:00 -0800
From: Enke Chen <enkechen@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ilya Varlashkin <Ilya.Varlashkin@de.easynet.net>
References: <20100115231502.319083A6959@core3.amsl.com> <D12350C326DF61448B1AE6B46C453F0E63E44C@ex01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net>
In-Reply-To: <D12350C326DF61448B1AE6B46C453F0E63E44C@ex01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: idr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Idr] Error handling in draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-10.txt
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/idr>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:03:56 -0000
Hi, ILya: As withdrawing a capability that was not advertised previously does not have any practical impact, we can specify that the capability revision should be ignored in that case. Thanks. -- Enke On 2/1/10 2:00 AM, Ilya Varlashkin wrote: > Hi, > > although draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-10 contains some guidelines for > error handling, there is still possibility for having two conformant but > different implementations. Consider initiator of capability update > message requests removal (Action bit set to 1) of a capability, which > was not previously advertised. Current draft leaves it up to receiver > implementation to decide either to silently ignore such capability or to > send notification back to originator. Shouldn't behaviour in this > situation be explicitly defined as to avoid ambiguity? I think ideally > receiver of such confusing message should send undistruptive feedback, > but that would require implementation of not-yet-standardized > draft-ietf-idr-advisory. What's WG opinion on this? > > Kind regards, > iLya > _______________________________________________ > Idr mailing list > Idr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr >
- [Idr] I-D Action:draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-10.txt Internet-Drafts
- [Idr] Error handling in draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-ca… Ilya Varlashkin
- Re: [Idr] Error handling in draft-ietf-idr-dynami… Enke Chen