Re: [spring] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-12: (with COMMENT)

Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Mon, 24 April 2023 13:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18541C152D8F; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 D_d8rxvnObr9; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A8E0C152D8C; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Q4mfz5XZgz6Gr51; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1682344091; bh=/mxbYPmWfplGnthP3nQy28WfysYaXBH5uUlAsBShDQc=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=e/rVKUym3exBszjHnV5kIZD3nF6z7HaGIUFiA+YIsxVXgI01edvScTiORs7k7IWgc YAaqHwUIu8Y4hgsB+yi0tpr1ftJvFLFY2bi048+RAZTcRzwTrbZCT3GBSj8nWYngmd FEYmrKlOPqWRA8vrrzhqs3gSvcm+LCl7C+hJagA8=
X-Quarantine-ID: <fJ5XA4USMo_L>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.22.80] (unknown [50.233.136.230]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Q4mfy5sbBz6G9tZ; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 06:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7ee79c77-74ee-91ad-95a4-b7262b088781@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:48:08 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr@ietf.org, spring@ietf.org, bruno.decraene@orange.com
References: <168234194260.20545.7426421938431378687@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <168234194260.20545.7426421938431378687@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/TjbI83D5GCAkjg_Li5EKiGnjn08>
Subject: Re: [spring] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:48:24 -0000

Thanks Eric.  Trimmed, just to keep your two questions.  I am speaking 
as a significant contributor, but will leave text changes to the pen 
holders.

Yours,

Joel

On 4/24/2023 9:12 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker wrote:
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-spring-nsh-sr-12: No Objection
>
> ## Section 5.2
>
> Should the cache be emptied when a packet came back ? or on time-out (as either
> no reply or multiple replies could be expected). The reader has to wait until
> section 9 to get some hints (and it is unclear whether the caching refers to
> the section 5.2 caching).

Yes, the cache should be emptied in both cases.  And it would probably 
help readers to say so earlier in the document.

>
> ## Section 9
>
> In absence of cache entry, should the text specify that the packet is dropped ?
> Or should a ICMP sent back to the SF ?
The packet should be dropped in the absence of a cache entry.  I see no 
point in sending an error to the SF, as it would likely have no idea 
what to do with the message.  Agreed that we should probably say so.
>