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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Wed, 21 October 2015 06:05 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 70EA11B35D1; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 wCaCR4LG87xg; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B4EF1B35C3; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 23:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 794AC3B436D; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:05:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.58]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 50A08238059; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:05:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::60a9:abc3:86e6:2541]) by OPEXCLILM33.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::3881:fc15:b4b2:9017%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:05:49 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRC3A7ozjaewwI/0mauTJC0zksup51cdoA
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:05:48 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933008C840BF@OPEXCLILMA3.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <20151020194800.16094.22475.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20151020194800.16094.22475.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.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
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.10.21.51516
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pcp/nFmTOuydK4E2SktReEfkVAZdsMg>
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>, "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 06:05:56 -0000

Hi Barry, 

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Barry Leiba [mailto:barryleiba@computer.org]
> Envoyé : mardi 20 octobre 2015 21:48
> À : The IESG
> Cc : draft-ietf-pcp-port-set@ietf.org; pcp-chairs@ietf.org;
> rapenno@yahoo.com; pcp@ietf.org
> Objet : Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-port-set/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Just one question about Port Set Size = 1:
> 
> 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).
> 
> ...but earlier, in Section 4:
> 
>    Port Set Size:  Number of ports requested.  MUST NOT be zero.
> 
> Should the Port Set Size definition instead say "MUST be greater than
> 1.", given what 4.1 says?

[Med] The current behavior of the server if the size=1 is not strict compared to size=0. The server rejects the request with an illegal size value (0), while it ignores the option if size=1 but processes the request. The logic is to increase the serviceability of (bad PCP client implementations). 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.   

> 
> ...and in Section 4.2:
> 
>    o  If the Port Set Size is zero, a MALFORMED_OPTION error is
>       returned.
> 
> What happens if Port Set Size is 1?  This seems to answer that:
> 
>    SHOULD map at least one
>    port (which is the same behavior as if Port Set Size is set to 1).
> 

[Med] We have this text in Section 4.1:

" if the PCP server receives a single-port PCP MAP request that includes a PORT_SET option, the PORT_SET option is silently ignored and the request is handled as a single-port PCP MAP request."

> ...but how is that allowed, given what Section 4.1 says?
>