Re: WGLC: Re: Questions re: draft-ietf-mboned-driad-amt-discovery

--===============2154964278833595938==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000de8b7405960c3db6"

--000000000000de8b7405960c3db6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 4:48 PM Holland, Jake <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Kyle,
>
> From: Kyle Rose <[email protected]>
> > Re: "connection", RFC 7450 uses "connection" in a relevant way in exactly
> > one place (4.1.4 Deployment) but (as noted in this draft) fails to define
> > it. It does repeatedly refer to a three-way handshake, however, so
> perhaps
> > text should be added to this draft to make it clear that "connection" is
> > (AFAICT) being defined as completion of the first two steps of the
> three-way
> > handshake from 7450.
>
> Something like that originally occurred to me, but I think DRIAD's
> formulation disagrees with the simple form of that, because of a disconnect
> in the handling of the L flag.
>
> I'll tentatively call this suggestion "rejected with due consideration"
> unless you want to discuss more


I am convinced by your explanation. Thanks.

> Re: the DNS rate limiting, what motivated the numbers in the normative:
> > q( Otherwise, a gateway MUST provide a rate limit for the DNS queries,
> and
> > its default settings MUST NOT permit more than 10 queries for any
> > 100-millisecond period)
>
> The first and biggest motivation is that I thought _some_ numbers should be
> present.  It matters less what they are than that there is something.
>
> ...snip...
>
> When you ask about motivations I have to admit I put this in more to ease
> my troubled soul than because I think it'll really prevent a problem on
> someone's network in practice, based on any kind of sound measurements.
> But
> of course suggestions are welcome on improved language here.
>

Sounds reasonable. I don't really have any suggestions; it just feels weird
to specify a hard limit without any reference to downstream demand: should
a gateway in a residential CPE have the same rate limit as a gateway on a
corporate border router? Of course not. But I suppose that's exactly the
point of a default limit, in that it forces the vendor or operator to make
a different choice intentionally.

Kyle

--000000000000de8b7405960c3db6
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail=
_attr">On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 4:48 PM Holland, Jake &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:=
[email protected]">[email protected]</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px s=
olid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi Kyle,<br>
<br>
From: Kyle Rose &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">kr=
[email protected]</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; Re: &quot;connection&quot;, RFC 7450 uses &quot;connection&quot; in a =
relevant way in exactly<br>
&gt; one place (4.1.4 Deployment) but (as noted in this draft) fails to def=
ine<br>
&gt; it. It does repeatedly refer to a three-way handshake, however, so per=
haps<br>
&gt; text should be added to this draft to make it clear that &quot;connect=
ion&quot; is<br>
&gt; (AFAICT) being defined as completion of the first two steps of the thr=
ee-way<br>
&gt; handshake from 7450. <br>
<br>
Something like that originally occurred to me, but I think DRIAD&#39;s<br>
formulation disagrees with the simple form of that, because of a disconnect=
<br>
in the handling of the L flag.<br>
<br>
I&#39;ll tentatively call this suggestion &quot;rejected with due considera=
tion&quot;<br>
unless you want to discuss more</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am convin=
ced by your explanation. Thanks.<br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,20=
4);padding-left:1ex"><div>
&gt; Re: the DNS rate limiting, what motivated the numbers in the normative=
:<br>
&gt; q( Otherwise, a gateway MUST provide a rate limit for the DNS queries,=
 and<br>
&gt; its default settings MUST NOT permit more than 10 queries for any<br>
&gt; 100-millisecond period)<br>
<br>
The first and biggest motivation is that I thought _some_ numbers should be=
<br>
present.=C2=A0 It matters less what they are than that there is something.<=
br>
<br></div>...snip...<br><div>
<br>
When you ask about motivations I have to admit I put this in more to ease<b=
r>
my troubled soul than because I think it&#39;ll really prevent a problem on=
<br>
someone&#39;s network in practice, based on any kind of sound measurements.=
=C2=A0 But<br>
of course suggestions are welcome on improved language here.<br></div></blo=
ckquote><div><br></div><div>Sounds reasonable. I don&#39;t really have any =
suggestions; it just feels weird to specify a hard limit without any refere=
nce to downstream demand: should a gateway in a residential CPE have the sa=
me rate limit as a gateway on a corporate border router? Of course not. But=
 I suppose that&#39;s exactly the point of a default limit, in that it forc=
es the vendor or operator to make a different choice intentionally.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>Kyle<br></div></div></div>

--000000000000de8b7405960c3db6--


--===============2154964278833595938==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

--===============2154964278833595938==--