Re: [P2PSIP] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS)

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Sat, 19 March 2016 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93CB12D739 for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 04:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=U1+o1/vY; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=JErrW3oK
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PiM0xMUK2NpN for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 04:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E698612D539 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 04:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585B720285 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 07:31:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 19 Mar 2016 07:31:11 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=IjC2J5U0+aEOrJ8NvFhlI0f9Euc=; b=U1+o1/ vYbEbCcLLak8Y+Joh4zhPUq74UW5oc8PT8rfK/aLzmZur3VyXVljWzNPHCaE115u PnQwOZ1qDCv5jyeZZ9HtlpUAdZq++SMgNKvO6DnvJHmHANtvsTBbxuO9SitBjMIn Vi4XWGICdYe147lDQj+W1EV5eGUw1fnk1DrFY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=IjC2J5U0+aEOrJ8 NvFhlI0f9Euc=; b=JErrW3oKp9O3KWLBWpzfqGyZl4S/teGcRKM0X5PWnaoL+81 qil7aCixuXnLRJxDd1mjiXF0symwwy87LGt7SqYmSzSSg/qmgKKVdybnPGEG1VT2 Yo3OsY8+40RMHWMKKcCG/rnA/mGMOlMLLSRLoWM6DV6GZX+HnZHqUKWSWpr0=
X-Sasl-enc: NI0pkVaaG8bsUfSYzV2gicHReoCDpKt3YP0X/QNs8Hkv 1458387070
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8813.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.190]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3FFE8C00014; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 07:31:10 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F65DB82BF@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 04:31:16 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2AABBDFD-EC74-4999-A337-3439F663BF8C@cooperw.in>
References: <20151217072025.29734.77582.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F65DAC93C@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <11E81FFA-7187-43B4-BA99-40859D835FDD@piuha.net> <78ECC973-EF0E-40F1-8C26-F060F033563E@isode.com> <E33E01DFD5BEA24B9F3F18671078951F65DB82BF@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/8llkxVCZREQoFWYcs4TtnpT0I0w>
Cc: "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" <p2psip-chairs@ietf.org>, "p2psip@ietf.org" <p2psip@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, "draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/p2psip/>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 11:31:13 -0000

Jari,

Are you able to clear now that these changes have been made?

Thanks,
Alissa

> On Jan 29, 2016, at 10:46 PM, Songhaibin (A) <haibin.song@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Alexey and Jari,
> 
> Accept the text what Jari suggested. And now it is clear.
> 
> BR,
> -Haibin Song
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexey Melnikov [mailto:alexey.melnikov@isode.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 6:36 PM
>> To: Jari Arkko; Songhaibin (A)
>> Cc: The IESG; p2psip-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics@ietf.org;
>> p2psip@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-ietf-p2psip-diagnostics-19:
>> (with DISCUSS)
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> On 7 Jan 2016, at 00:34, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> In Section 5.3, it says "The dMFlags field described above is a 64 bit field
>> that allows initiator nodes to identify up to 62 items of base information to
>> request in a request message (the first and last flags being reserved)." 62 bits
>> can be used to indicate up to 62 diagnostic Kinds, but dMFlags reserves all "0"s
>> that means nothing is requested, and all "1"s that means everything is
>> requested. But at the same time, the first and last bits cannot be used for
>> other purposes.
>>> 
>>> Right. Can that be explained somewhere, and can Section 9.1 show the
>>> two aspects? That is, the all 0s/1s *and* first and last bits being
>>> reserved? The current text does not reserve the first and last bits.
>>> It only reserves the all 0s and all 1s...
>> 
>> I thought the same.
>>> 
>>>   +-------------------------+------------------------------+----------+
>>>   |  diagnostic information |diagnostic flag in dMFlags    | RFC      |
>>>   |-------------------------+------------------------------+----------|
>>>   |Reserved                 | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0000
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |STATUS_INFO              | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0001
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |ROUTING_TABLE_SIZE       | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0002
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |PROCESS_POWER            | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0004
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |UPSTREAM_BANDWIDTH       | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0008
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |DOWNSTREAM_ BANDWIDTH    | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0010
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |SOFTWARE_VERSION         | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0020
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |MACHINE_UPTIME           | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0040
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |APP_UPTIME               | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0080
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |MEMORY_FOOTPRINT         | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0100
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |DATASIZE_STORED          | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0200
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |INSTANCES_STORED         | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0400
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |MESSAGES_SENT_RCVD       | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0800
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |EWMA_BYTES_SENT          | 0x 0000 0000 0000 1000
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |EWMA_BYTES_RCVD          | 0x 0000 0000 0000 2000
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |UNDERLAY_HOP             | 0x 0000 0000 0000 4000
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |BATTERY_STATUS           | 0x 0000 0000 0000 8000
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |Reserved                 | 0x FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   +-------------------------+------------------------------+----+
>>> 
>>> But maybe I'm missing something.
>>> 
>>> I thought the text above should be something like this instead:
>> 
>> Exactly my point. If what Jari suggests is not true, then the text needs even
>> more work.
>>> 
>>>   +-------------------------+------------------------------+----------+
>>>   |  diagnostic information |diagnostic flag in dMFlags    | RFC      |
>>>   |-------------------------+------------------------------+----------|
>>>   |Reserved All 0s value   | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0000
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |Reserved First Bit    | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0001       |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |STATUS_INFO              | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0002
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |ROUTING_TABLE_SIZE       | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0004
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |PROCESS_POWER            | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0008
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |UPSTREAM_BANDWIDTH       | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0010
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |DOWNSTREAM_ BANDWIDTH    | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0020
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |SOFTWARE_VERSION         | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0040
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |MACHINE_UPTIME           | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0080
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |APP_UPTIME               | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0100
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |MEMORY_FOOTPRINT         | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0200
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |DATASIZE_STORED          | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0400
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |INSTANCES_STORED         | 0x 0000 0000 0000 0800
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |MESSAGES_SENT_RCVD       | 0x 0000 0000 0000 1000
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |EWMA_BYTES_SENT          | 0x 0000 0000 0000 2000
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |EWMA_BYTES_RCVD          | 0x 0000 0000 0000 4000
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |UNDERLAY_HOP             | 0x 0000 0000 0000 8000
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |BATTERY_STATUS           | 0x 0000 0000 0001 0000
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |Reserved Last Bit              | 0x 8000 0000 0000 0000
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   |Reserved All 1s Value       | 0x FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF
>> |RFC-[TBDX]|
>>>   +-------------------------+------------------------------+----+
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, Section 5.3 uses "delimited" when it probably should have said
>>>>> "terminated", unless there's more substructure in the
>>>>> SOFTWARE_VERSION string than is identified by the text.
>>>> 
>>>> It is the language problem and accepted.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> Jari
>>> 
>