IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - question 2

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Mon, 18 March 2024 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F00C1D5C73; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=psg.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I7Pu6pxYp_0U; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E6A0C180B43; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=psg.com; s=rgnet-mail; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc: To:From:Message-ID:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=n3FbhSikYVu+O0SqSLBjneYGLuX3H0tWuSSrwgsgWig=; b=ncK6N+tFVCsx2WiNHT1Nl6IDyM hagM8it5KaRJeJaAPLAaw9eZGO9HnhynaiGUafiDu/CoQf80OoGpQzlxIK5+sQPlDkwsrQDac6JTR FJ68tO0faAbC9jeZk7s8hQDKolhlhRfdNBxeWr9rHxGlwxmtcojLJF/La/royToDktjVb0PCwWq6c wgou69Ch/EBEZUnMRqPHANY3RhSYLLETM1m9vEZH6vtffSfd1MnWkQjxyFVruXBL1Taxkecef++J9 Qc4IbtI6cgATuciSnQ+Uiq4R5FJfZBVVDvhaSv20NMNKdMtDqNGVTjleA2+TugGyi7cGOr0r/OXTH rwnAOgdA==;
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1rmKhF-000jPu-0r; Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:39:05 +0000
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:39:04 -0700
Message-ID: <m2cyrri5jb.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: "Borchert, Oliver (Fed)" <oliver.borchert=40nist.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR09MB11839392EBF58C9401601A745982D2@PH0PR09MB11839.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
References: <ZexJxZYsgNGth_Q7@snel> <ZexN0VtykWRlmGvq@snel> <PH0PR09MB118394019CAD6F5E1436B3A7C98292@PH0PR09MB11839.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <ZfP651xK3ejKjnJU@feather.sobornost.net> <PH0PR09MB11839392EBF58C9401601A745982D2@PH0PR09MB11839.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/27.2 Mule/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/mdBiWdbaMp58r1MHMWm_RCGQJVg>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] rfc8210bis further review - question 2
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:39:11 -0000

> My main point was that RTR server implementers need not (SHOULD NOT?)
> generate just a single Session ID, but for robustness, generate a
> Session ID per protocol version.

as changing protocol verions requires starting a new session, and the
session id is bound to the session, this seems moot.

randy

v2.43.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status