IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-04.txt comments due by AUG 18

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Mon, 18 August 2014 07:36 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418881A0326 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 00:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 UZB7KQdZBPed for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 00:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias244.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C9111A032A for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 00:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.201]) by omfeda09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 51CCEC0047; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:36:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.56]) by omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 32C5038406B; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:36:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([169.254.2.234]) by OPEXCLILH04.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([10.114.31.56]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:36:26 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Thread-Topic: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-04.txt comments due by AUG 18
Thread-Index: AQHPuUNltk8V9ak0A0+v7hx4jfb6JJvV+LZQ
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 07:36:26 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004F9F8@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <b8f62d41c0da4327ad79bada16a3b8a2@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CANO7kWAPbSsXzWzSZDjxNe-q1jAwsK61_aiQZHMnyZhHz8utNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANO7kWAPbSsXzWzSZDjxNe-q1jAwsK61_aiQZHMnyZhHz8utNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.8.18.64221
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/4BlDVgMh_gHncdJC1x3f19sRkcs
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-04.txt comments due by AUG 18
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 07:36:32 -0000

Hi Simon,

Thank you for the review.

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : pcp [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Simon Perreault
>Envoyé : samedi 16 août 2014 13:15
>À : Dave Thaler
>Cc : pcp@ietf.org
>Objet : Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-04.txt comments due
>by AUG 18
>
>On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> -02 of this document went through a WGLC back in February but has had
>some
>> significant changes since then.  This email initiates a new Working Group
>Last Call on
>> draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-04 to conclude on Monday, August 18th.
>> We believe that this should give sufficient time to review, taking into
>account
>> IETF week and various travel plans.  Please send comments to the list.
>>
>> As a reminder, when responding to a WGLC, what we chairs are looking for
>is a statement
>> about document quality (not really about whether the mechanism should
>move
>> forward).  That is, state whether you think the document is ready as is,
>> or if not, what issues you see.
>
>I've re-read the document carefully and compared with my previous
>comments. All my comments have been addressed. I particularly like the
>elegance of the new algorithm which defers much of the work to RFC
>6724. Implementation would be straightforward. The example is very
>good.
>
>One comment about this part:
>
>   For efficiency, the PCP client SHOULD use the same Mapping Nonce for
>   requests sent to all PCP server IP addresses.
>
>I suggest rewording for clarity:
>
>   For efficiency, the PCP client SHOULD use the same Mapping Nonce for
>   requests sent to all IP addresses belonging to a single PCP server.

[Med] The text you quoted is under "3. IP Address Selection: PCP Server with Multiple IP Addresses". The text should be interpreted in that context. The text currently in the draft is OK IMHO.

>Different Mapping Nonces MUST still be used for requests sent to
>different PCP servers.

[Med] This is already in RFC6887, section 11.2. This document does not modify that behavior. If you really think a note to remind that behavior is needed, then a sentence can be added to Section 4. Thanks.

>
>Simon
>
>_______________________________________________
>pcp mailing list
>pcp@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email