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

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Sat, 19 March 2016 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 908F612D5EE for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=fastmail.fm header.b=Rhg0xSVN; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=q2Ohjouu
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 F6XcGEZMtNXO for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:34:14 -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 75B2612D5B9 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 12:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C5220844 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 15:34:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 19 Mar 2016 15:34:13 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; 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=DHhb0jZFIq4sH6LBRZn6zTu2zWw=; b=Rhg0xS VNswFelKAciJD0upeVhuDSoUH3Ki1Rvld0/e3owtqzviqdPPIPvsLEXRwvdzx7H9 zAOHY36fMOtCqAGMt4LlKLIW6KyE3V5HK3N7/g0bNWuSH+vN/6GCN4XP3C51sHv6 9T7+657BPhIgMpaKU9XhQI02ahCOR4QV6HnQ4=
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=DHhb0jZFIq4sH6L BRZn6zTu2zWw=; b=q2OhjouuH3ybCYBRQ7b7WTa/32yfoBSlMO9ncrNX9ITyOtc st7shfTjuAQTXw6Ox7vml/gi9WVbgvhKuVWZ8Lxc4neeoU9PCB4R9uDqR+HulEDU 8/j+1v8jGiLLBmuaC88Hn4R8ThyigKvNsqpQWHUimuWGhWLtV8LTqyJs2DjY=
X-Sasl-enc: wHSaO29ehsrhVQoXPt2nNx3HVKFOkeRqDHpPt7AewQEt 1458416053
Received: from [10.2.215.180] (unknown [212.183.128.226]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 33C00C00013; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 15:34:13 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13D15)
In-Reply-To: <2AABBDFD-EC74-4999-A337-3439F663BF8C@cooperw.in>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 19:36:15 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9CE619D9-1996-42CB-A8E4-78A86BC3A234@fastmail.fm>
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>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/glmBF_e38Jv27JLHY-ltfE05sUs>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:06:14 -0700
Cc: "p2psip-chairs@ietf.org" <p2psip-chairs@ietf.org>, "p2psip@ietf.org" <p2psip@ietf.org>, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, 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 19:34:16 -0000

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
>