Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-04.txt comments due by AUG 18
Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> Mon, 18 August 2014 12:26 UTC
Return-Path: <sperreault@jive.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 D2F581A009A for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 05:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.979
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 OhApdCOeMFzS for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 05:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E5CF1A008D for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 05:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hi2so3613374wib.16 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 05:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6Cqv0wnP1YH6+1+vIe7zus4S+RhWNxUBhTkDao8zSlI=; b=BdoGLG9ICmLyudC/cytR0av+i96mgOk28bWFLZOwpq8bwRVk4biH4f14qPClFdI8pk ktI1NBEyNaZPpyt64OiPluMBnmmj2dHn14ttx0MPpKKxtjt1pketFhk2+4TLsiDqM1kc Eujbsar5gUUH1ay/hhOAEWYXApZFIeztEV4nxDTMfuWqVfn2BqZe0I48dKkCNCue8qKN YzUt2z5VXXBnLzg1eDyXatvBZ5Szj79z6osLIbiPDwrdRFUsuO7KJ2jrKQz5SwnJSHYf f16teNf9co6N+q3VBkwyk0WeAx7dhfytMu6bKTru8yWD1QvxWYw8bbFYwTloGtiPbghF OFkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmQaL1Z7ztTVEFIdb1Y4+pwzPs7If5YY7fQEsoX5VDxDxblc0rL+5Dwc65FYn7EVQV9Hw6l
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.107.65 with SMTP id ha1mr40019511wib.59.1408364773113; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 05:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.80.131 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 05:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004F9F8@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <b8f62d41c0da4327ad79bada16a3b8a2@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CANO7kWAPbSsXzWzSZDjxNe-q1jAwsK61_aiQZHMnyZhHz8utNQ@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004F9F8@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 08:26:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CANO7kWCVSgaqGTWuyKAtA1t_qB_DS9mxFh3k4DEHGA7hpQd--Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
To: Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/eGZWWhbqmvVvEQLk0CuSFjCW75g
Cc: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-04.txt comments due by AUG 18
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: <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, 18 Aug 2014 12:26:16 -0000
Med, All you wrote below is true. However, the fact is I was confused for a bit when I read this part, and I think I know PCP quite well. So I'm pretty sure that if you give this to a random programmer there's a good chance the confusion will create bugs. Better to be redundant and clear IMHO. Since I'm not proposing any change to the meaning of the text, I'm a bit surprised by the rejection. Simon On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:36 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote: >> For efficiency, the PCP client SHOULD use the same Mapping Nonce for >> requests sent to all PCP server IP addresses. >> >>I suggest rewording for clarity: >> >> For efficiency, the PCP client SHOULD use the same Mapping Nonce for >> requests sent to all IP addresses belonging to a single PCP server. > > [Med] The text you quoted is under "3. IP Address Selection: PCP Server with Multiple IP Addresses". The text should be interpreted in that context. The text currently in the draft is OK IMHO. > >>Different Mapping Nonces MUST still be used for requests sent to >>different PCP servers. > > [Med] This is already in RFC6887, section 11.2. This document does not modify that behavior. If you really think a note to remind that behavior is needed, then a sentence can be added to Section 4. Thanks.
- [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-04.tx… Dave Thaler
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-0… Dave Thaler
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-0… Moustafa, Hassnaa
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-0… Simon Perreault
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-0… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-0… Simon Perreault
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-0… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-0… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-0… Simon Perreault
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-0… Dave Thaler
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-0… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [pcp] WGLC: draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-0… Dave Thaler