Subject: [pcp] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:48:00 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pcp-port-set/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just one question about Port Set Size = 1:

In Section 4.1:

   A PCP client MUST NOT send a PORT_SET option for single-port PCP MAP
   requests (including creation, renewal, and deletion).

...but earlier, in Section 4:

   Port Set Size:  Number of ports requested.  MUST NOT be zero.

Should the Port Set Size definition instead say "MUST be greater than
1.", given what 4.1 says?

...and in Section 4.2:

   o  If the Port Set Size is zero, a MALFORMED_OPTION error is
      returned.

What happens if Port Set Size is 1?  This seems to answer that:

   SHOULD map at least one
   port (which is the same behavior as if Port Set Size is set to 1).

...but how is that allowed, given what Section 4.1 says?

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 06:05:48 +0000

Hi Barry, 

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Barry Leiba [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Envoyé : mardi 20 octobre 2015 21:48
> À : The IESG
> Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Objet : Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12: (with
> COMMENT)
> 

[Med] The current behavior of the server if the size=1 is not strict compared to size=0. The server rejects the request with an illegal size value (0), while it ignores the option if size=1 but processes the request. The logic is to increase the serviceability of (bad PCP client implementations). The text at the client side is motivated by the processing increase at the server's side that is induced by a PORT_SET with size=1. 

We may consider this change: s/A PCP client MUST NOT send/A PCP client SHOULD NOT.   

>    port (which is the same behavior as if Port Set Size is set to 1).

[Med] We have this text in Section 4.1:

" if the PCP server receives a single-port PCP MAP request that includes a PORT_SET option, the PORT_SET option is silently ignored and the request is handled as a single-port PCP MAP request."

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 05:23:06 -0400

>>    requests (including creation, renewal, and deletion).
...
> The text at the client side is motivated by the processing increase at the
> server's side that is induced by a PORT_SET with size=1.
>

That would address all my questions about this, yes.  I suggest
including your explanation, as this:

OLD
   A PCP client MUST NOT send a PORT_SET option for single-port PCP MAP
   requests (including creation, renewal, and deletion).
NEW
   A PCP client SHOULD NOT send a PORT_SET option for single-port PCP
   MAP requests (including creation, renewal, and deletion), because that
   needlessly increases processing on the server.
END

Thanks for addressing this.

Barry

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:41:42 +0000

Re-,

Fixed in my local copy.

Thank you.
Cheers,
Med

> De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de
> Barry Leiba
> Envoyé : mercredi 21 octobre 2015 11:23
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN
> Cc : The IESG; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> Objet : Re: Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-pcp-port-set-12:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> >> In Section 4.1:
> >>