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

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Sat, 19 March 2016 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 09C2112D586; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 15:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vi0C_d4Vs5ZE; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 15:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF1C512D52A; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 15:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CB162CCBF; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 00:25:33 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3rGI2hwXuzUL; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 00:25:32 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556872CC9A; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 00:25:32 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D41F1FA7-FD3E-4642-9425-C820DC0D254E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <9CE619D9-1996-42CB-A8E4-78A86BC3A234@fastmail.fm>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 00:25:30 +0200
Message-Id: <6874FFA6-1829-4302-81EB-ADA235DE4FD4@piuha.net>
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> <2AABBDFD-EC74-4999-A337-3439F663BF8C@cooperw.in> <9CE619D9-1996-42CB-A8E4-78A86BC3A234@fastmail.fm>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/_LpxpY7sZMf-h1lbopStm5yaFUQ>
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 22:25:38 -0000

Alexey is correct. That’s still a bug, and one that has to be fixed.

I’ll leave it to you Alissa to shepherd this however, I have cleared.

Jari

On 19 Mar 2016, at 21:36, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Alissa,
> 
>> On 19 Mar 2016, at 11:31, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
>> 
>> Jari,
>> 
>> Are you able to clear now that these changes have been made?
> 
> The draft has improved, however Section 9.1 still seems incorrect: if the first bit is reserved, then the first allocated value must be 2, so all other allocated values should be shifted by 1 bit.
> 
>> 
>> 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
>>