IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Implementation Analysis: strong preference for PCP-specific approach

Margaret Wasserman <margaretw42@gmail.com> Tue, 18 September 2012 10:52 UTC

Return-Path: <margaretw42@gmail.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 B40A921F87E6 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cmm-PWZKPain for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com (mail-qa0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A26421F87E4 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qadz3 with SMTP id z3so2404186qad.10 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=B2MF6IiYl/jejCJ8O/BJcEjXBRZ5zMma7ea1PeF5660=; b=cCKtG/AJXlaUkw1QrSpmDFfpmRx6v9UJdLx/dMY0JJt8/Qp19Tyu2aksrOMg5KwK4T m1ChYLKMu7q8zr8tesxwIBt2rgAiM3DUqjMuIPUPcGQ4vj56vpD/km4XTKkzIX4LLhAW Cj9p78BqetcmpRk1kBldA5y1tSvmXe8bNc5BmHf4du233TF/xsQm12EueLbAkwEIZFUz snScybddGdO+SQYFrxXDfQyxvFt3PbPqhpkynqIHRZZ+BoFotKq0wonUz31Fk7S52xE6 RjlQ0JtwfsYdBnINnorDwKlCl9byDP+Uw4Dnfp47Pet/4Z2Vz4EhhQW43YQg7cSDzxmr 9YKQ==
Received: by 10.224.100.200 with SMTP id z8mr552806qan.75.1347965550870; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lilac-too.home (pool-71-184-79-25.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [71.184.79.25]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fl3sm19057852qab.3.2012.09.18.03.52.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 18 Sep 2012 03:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaretw42@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <162F9DEB-572F-46D9-A34E-7C8576916F5F@yegin.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:52:22 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <04A79DE5-B4DB-4E3B-BC65-1D47A7E24F75@lilacglade.org>
References: <tslipbdzzwy.fsf@mit.edu> <74FC8E41-02D8-4BFC-A15F-035FA328DDC1@yegin.org> <tsltxuwvgda.fsf_-_@mit.edu> <162F9DEB-572F-46D9-A34E-7C8576916F5F@yegin.org>
To: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: pcp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pcp] Implementation Analysis: strong preference for PCP-specific approach
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: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:52:32 -0000

On Sep 18, 2012, at 3:41 AM, Alper Yegin wrote:
> Right, these are implementation considerations.
> Logging with the proper info, whether it's coming from PCP or PANA is what we need.
> So that tools can parse them properly.

Actually, I would argue that these are protocol design issues, not implementation issues.  Good protocol design makes it easy for implementation to get this sort of thing right.  Bad protocol design can make it much harder, or in some cases impossible, for implementations to provide a good experience to end-users.

Margaret

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email