Re: DRAFT Montreal minutes - X#NodeArchitecture comments

Paul Koning <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.ips
Message-ID <[email protected]>
>>>>> "William" == William Studenmund <[email protected]> writes:

 William> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

 William> On Aug 17, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Paul Koning wrote:

 >> A good way to fix this is to add two rules:
 >> 
 >> 1. If a key is not understood, it is assumed to be a negotiation
 >> key (and a NotUnderstood reply must be sent).  2. If a declarative
 >> key is sent, and a reply is received from the other end with that
 >> key and a value of NotUnderstood, this is a protocol violation
 >> only if the key is required to be implemented.  If it was not
 >> required (i.e., X# keys) then a NotUnderstood reply must be
 >> silently ignored.

 William> I like the proposed fix. The two comments I have are:

 William> 1) While X# keys are not required to be understood, any
 William> future "normal" keys we define will also fall into this
 William> category for existing devices.

True.  So replace "i.e." by "e.g.".

 William> 2) I note that a device may chose to pretend it doesn't
 William> understand a key that isn't mandatory, even though it really
 William> does. For X#NodeArchitecture, a device may answer with
 William> differing levels of detail. The lowest level may well be to
 William> pretend that the key's not understood. In such a case, the
 William> device MUST fully pretend it doesn't understand, and as per
 William> rule (1) above, it MUST not offer the key and MUST respond
 William> with "NotUnderstood."

 William> Note: this is a different behavior from understanding
 William> X#NodeArchitecture and choosing not to declare a value to
 William> the other side.

I'm not sure whether that is a distinction without a difference.  Does
it matter whether you can do that?  Do we need any extra text to make
it legal to do that?  I don't think so; if a key is optional then not
implementing it is allowed.  "Not implementing" may be a runtime
choice, not just a design-time choice.

If we do need that text for X#NodeArchitecture, it belongs in the
spec for that key, it isn't part of the 3720 fix.

     paul


_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.