Subject: [pcp] #41: PCP Options need to have a specific order, to ease processing

From: "pcp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:35:34 -0000

#41: PCP Options need to have a specific order, to ease processing

 PCP Options need to have a specific order, to ease processing especially
 on the server.

 dwing proposal:

 I propose doing the following:

 1.  Currently, the optional-to-process options are 0-127, and
 mandatory-to-process options are 128-255.  I propose swapping
 this, so the mandatory-to-process options are numbered lowest.

 2. new text for the General PCP Client processing section:

   If more than one Option is included in a PCP request, the
   Options MUST be ordered from the lowest-numbered option to
   the highest numbered option.

 3. new text for the General PCP Server processing section:

   If more than one Option is present in the PCP request,
   and they are not ordered by lowest-numbered to highest-
   numbered, the PCP server MUST generate a
   MISORDERED_OPTION error response.

-- 
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  dwing@…          |       Owner:  dwing@…        
     Type:  defect           |      Status:  new            
 Priority:  major            |   Milestone:                 
Component:  base             |     Version:                 
 Severity:  -                |    Keywords:                 
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/41>
pcp <http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/>

---

From: Reinaldo Penno <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:36:00 -0500

Looks good.

> #41: PCP Options need to have a specific order, to ease processing

 PCP
> Options need to have a specific order, to ease processing especially
 on the
> server.

 dwing proposal:

 1.  Currently,
> the optional-to-process options are 0-127, and
 mandatory-to-process options
> are 128-255.  I propose swapping
 this, so the mandatory-to-process options
> are numbered lowest.

 2. new text for the General PCP Client processing
> section:

> Options MUST be ordered from the lowest-numbered option to
   the highest
> numbered option.

 3. new text for the General PCP Server processing
> section:

   and
> they are not ordered by lowest-numbered to highest-
   numbered, the PCP
> server MUST generate a

--

> Reporter:  dwing@Š          |       Owner:  dwing@Š        
     Type:  defect
> |      Status:  new            
 Priority:  major            |   Milestone:
 Severity:  -
> |    Keywords:   

pcp
> <http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/>

_______________________________________________

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

---

From: "pcp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:13:42 -0000

Changes (by dwing@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 -06 will require lower..higher ordering for options.

 text will include:

 {{{
    If several Options are included in a PCP request or response,
    they MUST be encoded in numeric order by the PCP client and are
    processed in the order received. The server MUST reject requests
    that have mis-ordered options with the MISORDERED_OPTIONS error,
    and this also includes checking optional-to-process options.
 }}}

-- 
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  dwing@…          |        Owner:  dwing@…        
     Type:  defect           |       Status:  closed         
 Priority:  major            |    Milestone:                 
Component:  base             |      Version:                 
 Severity:  -                |   Resolution:  fixed          
 Keywords:                   |  
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/pcp/trac/ticket/41#comment:1>
pcp <http://tools.ietf.org/pcp/>