IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Int-area] Apps Directorate Review of draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Wed, 06 June 2012 00:46 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1FB21F86B7; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8hEsg8yX+SFg; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2C921F86AA; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q560jqv7027613 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FCEA840.9030204@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:45:52 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Apps Directorate Review of draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05
References: <4FCA0E7F.7020109@cisco.com> <ACEDFEC8-1525-47B0-92D8-FB7CB1D22A0C@isi.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206022113110.17026@shell4.bayarea.net> <1338699237.5620.3.camel@gwz-laptop> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206022157100.17026@shell4.bayarea.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206022157100.17026@shell4.bayarea.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Apps Discussion <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 00:46:11 -0000

On 6/2/2012 10:00 PM, C. M. Heard wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Glen Zorn wrote:
>> On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 21:21 -0700, C. M. Heard wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> In Section 6.1:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>     Datagram de-duplication can be accomplished using hash-based
>>>>>>     duplicate detection for cases where the ID field is absent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Under what circumstances would the ID field be absent?
>>>>
>>>> Replace "absent" with "known not unique".
>>>
>>> Better, I think, would be "not known to be unique".
>>
>> Except that the two are not semantically equivalent.

Sorry - I didn't catch that. When the datagram is atomic, under the new 
rules, we would *assume* that the ID field was not unique for a 
src/dst/protocol triple within the expected time (120 seconds).

I.e., the ID field is "assumed to not be useful for such purposes", 
which might be more accurate.

Joe

>
> Indeed.  That was why I suggested the change.
>
> //cmh
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email