IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 21 October 2015 11:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 74C0E1A9149; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] 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 ftDVtVVb7lD8; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-nor36.orange.com [80.12.70.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45C171A912B; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.64]) by opfednr21.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 7FBABC0519; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:41:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.66]) by opfednr00.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 40F741A0071; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:41:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILMA1.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::95e2:eb4b:3053:fabf%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:41:42 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Thread-Topic: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRC+IXozjaewwI/0mauTJC0zksup510vvQ
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:41:42 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C84337@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <20151020194800.16094.22475.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C840BF@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CALaySJJa2o9mJdLUXis9iPM9myErs4O09fojd8Jg5c9NTDZB1w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJa2o9mJdLUXis9iPM9myErs4O09fojd8Jg5c9NTDZB1w@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/cl8ixzs6m-UbWmtsvptEIAcnjm0>
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 11:41:46 -0000

Re-,

Fixed in my local copy.

Thank you.
Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : barryleiba@gmail.com [mailto:barryleiba@gmail.com] De la part de
> Barry Leiba
> Envoyé : mercredi 21 octobre 2015 11:23
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> Cc : The IESG; draft-ietf-pcp-port-set@ietf.org; pcp-chairs@ietf.org;
> rapenno@yahoo.com; pcp@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> >> 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