[Idr] Error handling in draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-10.txt

"Ilya Varlashkin" <Ilya.Varlashkin@de.easynet.net> Mon, 01 February 2010 09:59 UTC

Return-Path: <Ilya.Varlashkin@de.easynet.net>
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 2AA5828C105 for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 01:59:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 qQ4B1ctDYfjH for <idr@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 01:59:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from softy.de.easynet.net (softy.de.easynet.net [194.163.250.97]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6243A62C1 for <idr@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Feb 2010 01:59:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fe01kgham.de.easynet.net ([194.163.250.17] helo=fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net) by softy.de.easynet.net with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <Ilya.Varlashkin@de.easynet.net>) id 1Nbt50-0003SL-3R for idr@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:00:26 +0100
Received: from ex01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net ([10.43.3.3]) by fe01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:00:26 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:00:25 +0100
Message-ID: <D12350C326DF61448B1AE6B46C453F0E63E44C@ex01kgham.adoffice.local.de.easynet.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100115231502.319083A6959@core3.amsl.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Error handling in draft-ietf-idr-dynamic-cap-10.txt
thread-index: AcqWOJNx+8t2zAITTz6og7Y7AJW/OgM6ynEg
References: <20100115231502.319083A6959@core3.amsl.com>
From: Ilya Varlashkin <Ilya.Varlashkin@de.easynet.net>
To: idr@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2010 10:00:26.0225 (UTC) FILETIME=[6089EE10:01CAA325]
Subject: [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: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 09:59:56 -0000

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