Subject: [pcp] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:10:34 -0800

A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Port Control Protocol Working Group of the IETF.

    Title         : PCP Description Option
    Author(s)     : M. Boucadair, et al
    Filename      : draft-ietf-pcp-description-option
    Pages         : 6 
    Date          : 2014-02-21 
    
This document extends Port Control Protocol (PCP) with the ability to
   associate a description with a PCP-instantiated mapping.  It does so
   by defining a new DESCRIPTION option.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-05.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Matt Dainty <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:53:13 -0500

Section 3 of this draft seems to hint at different forms of option
processing compared to what is defined in RFC 6887.

If the PCP client includes the DESCRIPTION option and marks it as
mandatory the PCP server should return UNSUPP_OPTION if it does not
support it, rather than ignore it. In fact, if it truly doesn't
understand this option, that's what it will do anyway; you would have
to teach the server about this option to then make it ignore it. RFC
6887 defines the method of marking options as optional so clients
should use that if they don't want the option to potentially trigger an
error response from the server.

If the PCP client includes malformed UTF-8 content then the PCP server
should return MALFORMED_OPTION as per the standard option processing
rather than just ignore the option/request.

Matt

> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:33:12 +0100

Dear Matt,

This option is defined in the optional to process range (see IANA section). 

The draft follows the behavior in RFC6887, particularly this part:

   If the overall option structure of a request is valid, then how each
   individual option is handled is determined by the most significant
   bit in the option code.  If the most significant bit is set, handling
   this option is optional, and a PCP server MAY process or ignore this
   option, entirely at its discretion.  If the most significant bit is
   clear, handling this option is mandatory, and a PCP server MUST
   return the error MALFORMED_OPTION if the option contents are
   malformed, or UNSUPP_OPTION if the option is unrecognized,
   unimplemented, or disabled, or if the client is not authorized to use
   the option.  In error responses, all options are returned.  In
   success responses, all processed options are included and unprocessed
   options are not included.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : pcp [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Matt Dainty
>Envoyé : mardi 25 février 2014 12:53
>À : [email-masked]
>Objet : Re: [pcp] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pcp-description-option-05.txt
>