Re: [pcp] Do it differently when PCP response would have exceeded the maximum PCP message size?
"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Mon, 12 March 2012 22:17 UTC
Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF4A21E8151 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.992
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.992 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.607, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BsOlg3++Kg4L for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64F6321E8150 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; l=1469; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1331590666; x=1332800266; h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0758OYc1TGX32ZZeFfHxvoMmr8zWKjrYs9Jbauv4WNM=; b=gpgDCN3csuk7oIKQymaQuN3ak5L3MZm3ZskGHk0k85brPGaNJ0ZxJXWF y8tmpNWY6EmnAuvtrwpdAUP+mOsEcMzvb4zCd/aRFw/UcI/dg11mjrFds FWhh2/k/+uysZ76WOyy+bjZ5QS37+9PO6/YBKePZORqjN7m2z4XGUduRd 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAMp0Xk+rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABDpWyPaYEHggkBAQEECAoBFxBLAQMCCQ4BAgQBASgHGQgbCgkIAQEEARILF4dnnRMBnwOJRGOGWgSIVIUPkxSEeIMDgTU
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,573,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="35808784"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2012 22:17:46 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.194]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2CMHj6t009175; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:17:46 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Xiaohong Deng' <dxhbupt@gmail.com>, pcp@ietf.org
References: <CANb4Ocnv7D4CSuhk-_WuwgoyoLSHG5jWUfysnAHQ+JAX0oy1Nw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANb4Ocnv7D4CSuhk-_WuwgoyoLSHG5jWUfysnAHQ+JAX0oy1Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:17:45 -0700
Message-ID: <055e01cd009d$f3adc6d0$db095470$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AczvpnE3FTe0LfT/Q+SZYMbDwmmr8QQ93flQ
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [pcp] Do it differently when PCP response would have exceeded the maximum PCP message size?
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 12 Mar 2012 22:17:53 -0000
I didn't see any followups on this suggestion to create a new error code (e.g., RESPONSE_TOO_BIG), so I will leave the text as-is. -d > -----Original Message----- > From: Xiaohong Deng [mailto:dxhbupt@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 12:06 AM > To: pcp@ietf.org; dwing@cisco.com > Subject: Do it differently when PCP response would have exceeded the > maximum PCP message size? > > In the -23, it suggests in page 17 that: > > > > > > If a PCP response would have exceeded the maximum PCP message size, > > the PCP server SHOULD respond with MALFORMED_REQUEST. > > > > > While MALFORMED_REQUEST means the request could not be successfully > parsed, yet the scenario that text here is trying to describe > (explained by Dan): > > > > > 1. a request arrives, and has two fancy new PCP Options, one says "tell > me > > the human-assigned name for this mapping", and the other says "tell > > me the manufacturer and version of the PCP server" > > 2. the human-assigned name is 1000 bytes, and the manufacturer name is > > 50 bytes. > > 3. the response is built but its length exceeds the 1024 maximum > > size allowed. > > > > > How about do something differently than MALFORMED_REQUEST? For example, > define a new error code for the sake of accuracy or simply truncate the > > response at 1024 bytes to fit? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Xiaohong