Re: [Idr] draft-snijders-idr-rfc8203bis

+1

Cheers,
Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of "Jakob Heitz (jheitz)" <jheitz@cisco.com>
Date: Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 11:31
To: Job Snijders <job@ntt.net>, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
Cc: "bruno.decraene@orange.com" <bruno.decraene@orange.com>, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-snijders-idr-rfc8203bis

    The argument for Cyrillic makes sense.
    I have not seen any arguments for longer strings from any other language speakers.
    255 keeps it simple. And sufficient.
    
    Thanks,
    Jakob
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Job Snijders
    Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:17 AM
    To: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
    Cc: bruno.decraene@orange.com; Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org>; idr@ietf.org
    Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-snijders-idr-rfc8203bis
    
    On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:43:29PM -0500, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
    > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 05:08:00PM +0000, bruno.decraene@orange.com wrote:
    > >>> From: Idr idr-bounces@ietf.org On Behalf Of Peter Hessler
    > >>> The len field is 8 bits, which allows for a max of 255.
    > >>> 
    > >>> If longer is desired, then we'll need a new error code point.
    > >> 
    > >> Alternatively, another field may be added after the existing
    > >> "Shutdown Communication" field.  Either as a replacement (setting
    > >> the length of the first field to zero) or as a concatenation. 
    > > 
    > > Bruno is right (of course, since the length field was his idea to
    > > begin with :-), there are options available to extend beyond 255 if
    > > needed.
    > 
    > If the limit was 127 rather than 128, the top bit could have been
    > used. 
    > 
    > The closest thing that can be done will depend partly on what deployed
    > implementations do when 128 is exceed.  The spec says nothing right
    > now... and thus you might not do anything beyond saying "up to 255 is
    > fine".  
    
    Most of the open source implementations I'm aware of will log a message
    "invalid shutdown communication", and perhaps print a hexdump of that
    data. Since we're relatively early in the deployment cycle, I think it
    is feasible to upgrade the field and patch the existing implementations.
    
    > To get beyond 255, the simplest but gross one is to say "there may be
    > a second message after the shutdown communication field".
    
    If (and only if) we pick the route of going beyond 255, I'd consider
    deprecating RFC 8203 and have the new thing require the first byte to be
    a zero. I don't think there should be two 'shutdown communications'.
    
    > -- Jeff (and people wonder why I'm pushy about using large "length"
    > fields.)
    
    Not anymore! :)
    
    Kind regards,
    
    Job
    
    _______________________________________________
    Idr mailing list
    Idr@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr
    
    _______________________________________________
    Idr mailing list
    Idr@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr