IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] #74 (third-party-id-option): Mohamed Boucadair's comments on draft-ietf-pcp-third-party-id-option-00

Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> Fri, 09 January 2015 01:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dthaler@microsoft.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 3789B1A7001 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:37:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 RTAqPiaWseyg for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0751.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::751]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F7C21A01A5 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 17:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.141.25) by BY2PR03MB411.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.141.141.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.49.12; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 01:36:52 +0000
Received: from BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.141.25]) by BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.141.25]) with mapi id 15.01.0049.002; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 01:36:52 +0000
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>, Andreas Ripke <Andreas.Ripke@neclab.eu>, "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pcp] #74 (third-party-id-option): Mohamed Boucadair's comments on draft-ietf-pcp-third-party-id-option-00
Thread-Index: AQHQFYiv18dr0gAUwUu7AeZ+Ab+FRZyQ3I4AgADs44CAJWSr4A==
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 01:36:52 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR03MB41284D2E1810D223695CD64A3440@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <066.6faf9d8f2702d081360dcb658d129655@tools.ietf.org> <2D2FFE4726FAF74285C45D69FDC30E79912C7F0E@PALLENE.office.hd> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330048D8C34@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330048D8C34@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e0:ee43::2]
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=dthaler@microsoft.com;
x-dmarcaction: None
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3005003);SRVR:BY2PR03MB411;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BY2PR03MB411;
x-forefront-prvs: 04519BA941
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(189002)(51704005)(199003)(54206007)(68736005)(77096005)(102836002)(97736003)(105586002)(4396001)(107886001)(31966008)(107046002)(230783001)(76576001)(2900100001)(64706001)(106356001)(99286002)(2950100001)(106116001)(20776003)(86362001)(74316001)(33656002)(122556002)(99396003)(2501002)(21056001)(120916001)(2656002)(87936001)(62966003)(92566001)(54606007)(40100003)(77156002)(76176999)(50986999)(101416001)(54356999)(46102003)(3826002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR03MB411; H:BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: microsoft.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Jan 2015 01:36:52.6517 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR03MB411
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/itegF8dKAxlZEAK3zNfgibGMBmA>
Subject: Re: [pcp] #74 (third-party-id-option): Mohamed Boucadair's comments on draft-ietf-pcp-third-party-id-option-00
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: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 01:37:18 -0000

Andreas Ripke writes: 
> Med's comments contain two technical modifications.
> 
> 1. A recommended fixed maximum option length of 128 octets.
> 
> Why should we (unnecessarily?) set an explicit limit to this option?
> The fixed option length (16 octets) was changed to a variable length with the
> current draft version.
> The maximum PCP packet size is 1100 octets and the client must ensure not to
> cause an overrun according to RFC6887.
> But then, in RFC7220 the maximum variable length for the description option is
> limited to 1016 octets.
> Is there any special reason to have an explicit maximum option length defined?
> 
> [Med] Fixing a maximum is required to help dimensioning the server and to
> avoid exhausting server's resources. Most of the identifiers I'm aware of don't
> exceed 128 octets. Hence my recommendation to use that maximum.

My personal opinion on the above is that the other limits Andreas mentions
are already sufficient and we don't need to specify a shorter limit than what
you naturally get.

-Dave

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email