Subject: [pcp] blocking error in base 15

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:39:17 +0200

There is a blocking error in base 15: in 6.1 two 16 bit fields
in header request were added but not reflected in response request
in 6.2 so headers have no longer the same size!

I propose to change the two 96 into 128 in 6.2,
*and* from authors to reply in the list it is the correct fix
so we don't have to wait for the base 16 to work.

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:30:11 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Francis Dupont
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 3:39 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [pcp] blocking error in base 15
> 

You're right.  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-15#section-6.1
shows this, and the 32 bits marked with "**" shouldn't be there:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Version = 1  |R|   Opcode    |         Reserved              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Requested Lifetime (32 bits)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |            PCP Client's IP address (128 bits)                 |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
** |    PCP Client's Port          |    Reserved (16 bits)         | **
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                                                               :
   :             (optional) Opcode-specific information            :
   :                                                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   :                                                               :
   :             (optional) PCP Options                            :
   :                                                               :
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Those fields are not described in the text.

> I propose to change the two 96 into 128 in 6.2,

I don't understand.  By "96", I assume you mean "96 bit fields"; but
there is only one 96 bit field in 6.2 (response format).

By removing the extraneous 32 bits above (highlighted with "**")
we will have a request format with:

   32 bits header
   32 bits lifetime
  128 bits PCP client IP address
total: 192 bits

response format has:
   32 bits header
   32 bits lifetime
   32 bits epoch
   96 bits reserved
total: 192 bits

> so we don't have to wait for the base 16 to work.

-d

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

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:53:48 +0200

0                   1                   2                   3

   
   
=> the number 96 occurs twice in 6.2 (but you decided to remove the
source port, BTW the text about the address and port in the response
should be removed from base 15).

      32 bits header
      32 bits lifetime
   
   response format has:
      32 bits header
      32 bits lifetime
      32 bits epoch
      96 bits reserved
   total: 192 bits
   
=> so we came back to something sane

Thanks!