IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pcp] pcp-base-29

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Wed, 07 November 2012 16:29 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 7605921F8B96 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 08:29:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.558
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.558 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 yGZHMG1w9qj1 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 08:29:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D25921F8B4D for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 08:29:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=543; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1352305768; x=1353515368; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=apSeVmJLCzAESKoEsw52VqXYFvbWKSxAzhkqs5NracM=; b=Ff7HGwhK+dJLC0XDg11DgQTW0ji8DiZcRMd4hTHmdYgHSeS5VLVkhj4m ySZ2YMRQ/8YDQM0EibTb9r8aRDfbGCuF3Vrqwg5o25BPRG2ixXA1shayK zj+xWp4Y2NrDX6kzL8UD48a4jiYOEUKWn7wNOsD24hrBKBt8b5asggenU w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoFAAKMmlCrRDoI/2dsb2JhbABEhVG+D4EIgiUIAggBJ0wFaD8BBB4FEodnDJsIgSugJo8vgyUDiFqFGogHgRyNPYFrgw0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,730,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="63430915"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2012 16:29:06 +0000
Received: from DWINGWS01 ([10.21.74.136]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA7GT5lL016066 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 16:29:05 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: pcp@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:29:05 -0500
Message-ID: <0e4b01cdbd05$01952490$04bf6db0$@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac29BGt4IEgMHpFsQUi4tVBXxgcNQQ==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: [pcp] pcp-base-29
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: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:29:28 -0000

Reinaldo pointed out that -28 still had a latent paragraph suggesting a PCP
client could clear out old mappings.  With the Mapping Nonce change made
back in -27, the PCP client can't do that except in the unlikely scenario
where it is the same PCP client restarting (with same Mapping Nonce) and
with the same IP address.  I just submitted -29, which removes that
paragraph.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-29
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pcp-base-29.txt


There were no other WGLC comments.

-d

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email