IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [storm] draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect - review comment

<david.black@emc.com> Sat, 27 August 2011 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E65D621F8B73 for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.11
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.489, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q+Wv8IS84INB for <storm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (mexforward.lss.emc.com [128.222.32.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A2621F8B72 for <storm@ietf.org>; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 15:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI01.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.54]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p7RMbhhn012805 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:37:43 -0400
Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd01.lss.emc.com [10.254.221.251]) by hop04-l1d11-si01.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:37:31 -0400
Received: from mxhub16.corp.emc.com (mxhub16.corp.emc.com [128.221.56.105]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id p7RMbTCa026633; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:37:29 -0400
Received: from mx14a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.143]) by mxhub16.corp.emc.com ([128.221.56.105]) with mapi; Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:37:29 -0400
From: david.black@emc.com
To: swise@opengridcomputing.com, arkady.kanevsky@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:37:28 -0400
Thread-Topic: [storm] draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect - review comment
Thread-Index: Acxhm7WBvHRtWAkhQnauv2sp5ojSKQDbh6/A
Message-ID: <7C4DFCE962635144B8FAE8CA11D0BF1E058B130027@MX14A.corp.emc.com>
References: <B7F58B09EC4B43D7BF8BFA9FA95A8061@davidPC> <95DEF288D9FA451B8C4BCA4ACAE1C6DA@davidPC> <CAChuxHggYU5ivHxgWFVOs6vxCH2nb=mbMJSnx10J7rjK0zAhpg@mail.gmail.com> <4E53AFD2.50108@opengridcomputing.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E53AFD2.50108@opengridcomputing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-EMM-MHVC: 1
Cc: tatyana.e.nikolova@intel.com, storm@ietf.org, kumaras@chelsio.com, faisal.latif@intel.com
Subject: Re: [storm] draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect - review comment
X-BeenThere: storm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Storage Maintenance WG <storm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/storm>
List-Post: <mailto:storm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm>, <mailto:storm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2011 22:36:28 -0000

Network byte order is the usual default, but it doesn't hurt to say so.

Thanks,
--David


> -----Original Message-----
> From: storm-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:storm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Wise
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 9:49 AM
> To: arkady kanevsky
> Cc: Nikolova, Tatyana E; Latif, Faisal; Kumar A S; storm@ietf.org
> Subject: [storm] draft-ietf-storm-mpa-peer-connect - review comment
> 
> Hey,
> 
> I believe the ORD/IRD fields in the MPAv2 messages need to be in Network
> Byte Order.  This is not mandated in the draft.
> 
> I also think there is an oversight in RFC 5044 with regard to the
> PD_Length field in the MPAv1 messages.  It should also be in Network
> Byte Order, but I don't see this requirement anywhere in the RFC.
> 
> Or maybe NBO is a always assumed in IETF wire-protocol messages?
> 
> 
> Steve.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> storm mailing list
> storm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email