IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 21 October 2015 09:23 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 543231A0379; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 02:23:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 eEje-VA3MYyQ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 02:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x235.google.com (mail-vk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 780F21A0369; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 02:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vkat63 with SMTP id t63so25399338vka.1; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 02:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9/OuedSfD6hwBTGuLpZQ9tJhUoqJKEyXlUmtk30mdJw=; b=GG0ZEn0K51qwesmpL+Q7bNjY+isqyfd8whddfAbtiVk7RdmGUh8FhSeHv0Xq2A1vDs qKDuuHvSrdTzdXAKhUN3q04OTYXBKnJZjezVr437A0aapP4Z7VlCADVAHneDVjDMijU/ tf07tOHNmM2TOgZAvaM06T2Kn698nfzt1OhiG+bvqUX+uqH1i7llJD6O6u7KNSoZQTbZ 39Ka65SaZQUORBll6q145cwpUhN04faudPC7QRuHQKyNHzhTh13y2Z+dJN6Q/UAWnJ6t GHx1a/eikUEZqvsaj2i/tCp8jtOIAgZDO+y8WBDmo6U5J7zSem8tWN1OPkkgs0i7Q/eu gk8w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.58.137 with SMTP id h131mr4552675vka.130.1445419386634; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 02:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.31.54.65 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 02:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C840BF@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <20151020194800.16094.22475.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C840BF@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 05:23:06 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZezpvgaY5S-1GG8JHqYEJ9OQe-U
Message-ID: <CALaySJJa2o9mJdLUXis9iPM9myErs4O09fojd8Jg5c9NTDZB1w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/Zy6la-KhtvTTHLceNCCIv9Nfue8>
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>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "pcp-chairs@ietf.org" <pcp-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] Barry Leiba'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: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:23:09 -0000

>> In Section 4.1:
>>
>>    A PCP client MUST NOT send a PORT_SET option for single-port PCP MAP
>>    requests (including creation, renewal, and deletion).
...
> The text at the client side is motivated by the processing increase at the
> server's side that is induced by a PORT_SET with size=1.
>
> We may consider this change: s/A PCP client MUST NOT send/A PCP
> client SHOULD NOT.

That would address all my questions about this, yes.  I suggest
including your explanation, as this:

OLD
   A PCP client MUST NOT send a PORT_SET option for single-port PCP MAP
   requests (including creation, renewal, and deletion).
NEW
   A PCP client SHOULD NOT send a PORT_SET option for single-port PCP
   MAP requests (including creation, renewal, and deletion), because that
   needlessly increases processing on the server.
END

Thanks for addressing this.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email