IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] RD Review of draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-00

Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de> Wed, 07 September 2016 06:19 UTC

Return-Path: <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E682512B0E3; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.409
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 AYVeoX7gLYNb; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de (a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de [IPv6:2001:638:401:102:1aa9:5ff:fe5f:7f22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B92A12B0DC; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufsun5.fkie.fraunhofer.de ([128.7.2.5] helo=mailhost.fkie.fraunhofer.de) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>) id 1bhWCY-0003pU-7E; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 08:19:14 +0200
Received: from srv-mail-01.fkie.fraunhofer.de ([128.7.11.16] helo=srv-mail-01.gaia.fkie.fraunhofer.de) by mailhost.fkie.fraunhofer.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>) id 1bhWCY-0000YD-43; Wed, 07 Sep 2016 08:19:14 +0200
Received: from srv-mail-02.gaia.fkie.fraunhofer.de (128.7.11.17) by srv-mail-01.gaia.fkie.fraunhofer.de (128.7.11.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1156.6; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 08:19:13 +0200
Received: from [10.71.67.24] (128.7.89.212) by srv-mail-02.gaia.fkie.fraunhofer.de (128.7.11.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1156.6; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 08:19:13 +0200
From: Henning Rogge <henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
References: <CAGnRvuqH9f5XvnafvjNXYK9923ausr1r9xcOX+hXbOTiD4XJiw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEGkwgU07e=6+GMAGeLNTsjsnnFBQMY2yoHTy2gcArSv2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a3381f0f-c0e8-69c3-e509-9f8713459787@fkie.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 08:19:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEGkwgU07e=6+GMAGeLNTsjsnnFBQMY2yoHTy2gcArSv2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Originating-IP: [128.7.89.212]
X-ClientProxiedBy: srv-mail-01.gaia.fkie.fraunhofer.de (128.7.11.16) To srv-mail-02.gaia.fkie.fraunhofer.de (128.7.11.17)
X-Virus-Scanned: yes (ClamAV 0.98.1/22199/Wed Sep 7 01:36:53 2016) by a.mx.fkie.fraunhofer.de
X-Scan-Signature: 380fbaf250fdfd2c99b0a646ce1041f1
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/1NkWOe-wEZCRnsQhrJfAd_p2Wgo>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "trill@ietf.org" <trill@ietf.org>, Hao Weiguo <haoweiguo@huawei.com>, Li Yizhou <liyizhou@huawei.com>, Jon Hudson <jon.hudson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [trill] [RTG-DIR] RD Review of draft-ietf-trill-address-flush-00
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 06:19:21 -0000

On 03.09.2016 22:15, Donald Eastlake wrote:
>> - the difference between the "VLAN Block Case" (2.1) and "Extensible
>> Case" (2.2) feels artificial. Why not add a "VLAN block TLV", which
>> contains the list of VLAN start/end fields?
>
> As I recall this was in order to make the VLAN Block case closer to,
> for convenience, an existing implemented address flush RBridge channel
> message (using one of the "Private Use" RBridge Channel message
> protocol numbers) that only applies to VLAN blocks.

Okay, I didn't check for similarity with older messages.

  > I'll see what people think about merging the cases.

One more question, is case 2.2 optional to implement or is it mandatory?

>> - maybe the Nicknames could also be moved into a TLV, allowing to
>> process the whole message with a single TLV based parser.
>
> I can see making a common TLV format for all the non-nickname lists
> but I'm not sure there is much advantage to doing so for nicknames.

Unified parser codepath... maybe even with checking the TLVs against 
some kind of "schema" before processing them.

Henning Rogge
-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Zanderstrasse 5, 53177 Bonn, Germany
Telefon +49 228 50212-469
mailto:henning.rogge@fkie.fraunhofer.de http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email