Re: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: (with COMMENT)
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 22 October 2015 12:42 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 67F881ACCDA; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 05:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.311
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.311 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 sufUGpU46HKh; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 05:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74B431A92BC; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 05:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 868C6BE58; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:42:27 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wgt_Wg8T14QY; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:42:27 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [134.226.36.93] (bilbo.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.93]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9063FBE57; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:42:26 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1445517747; bh=jOKQ9tGN+uNxuVO2RNJXpAltgtGAobeDvKOil1RkJzA=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=CQ3GFcwVMjnldHmAuGfkArNDK3JtdGvpXERyLJfz7WnkoBACYbmSjoVf6nIxtb749 yf7L5ta4EcqhkjY0zKSZVDAQpzcZxaFut5QzXHSu3tcMLG6Cmwk4GSH6qpC77ta5zZ o9jOsUTxPD602U/2SlL/qhIyTCx73XP+vo9tC0M0=
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20151022121707.19305.9899.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C84D92@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <5628D9B2.4090700@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:42:26 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C84D92@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/OndVLdJLM5w7nD-xLP7CTQoAq_4>
Cc: "draft-ietf-pcp-port-set@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pcp-port-set@ietf.org>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>, "rapenno@yahoo.com" <rapenno@yahoo.com>, "pcp-chairs@ietf.org" <pcp-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: (with COMMENT)
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:42:31 -0000
Hiya, (The rest is fine, I've just a question on this) On 22/10/15 13:39, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: > [Med] The decision about what to return to the server depends on the > policies configured to the server and the ports usage of a client. A > server that supports port parity and port set assignment will honor a > request as far as the port quota is not exceeded. I don't see a valid > argument to require the server to always return an even number of > ports if parity is requested. Maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but if one of the reasons to set the parity bit in the request is that the client will only find an even set of ports useful then a server that returns an odd set of ports will be a tiny bit inefficient at least. It's not a big deal at all, but am I right in that? S.
- Re: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft… Barry Leiba
- [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-iet… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft… Reinaldo Penno (repenno)