Murray, Thanks again for your review! The changes Med points below are now available in version -14 of the draft, just uploaded.
Thanks! Alberto From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 at 11:26 AM To: Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-13: (with COMMENT) Hi Murray, Agree. Please see the changes we made to address your review at: https://github.com/boucadair/draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub/pull/18/files. BTW, for this comment: > > Also in Section 5: > > "If the subscription request fails, the Map-Server MUST send a > Map-Reply to the > originator ..." > > That should be a "Negative Map-Reply", right? > I mistakenly confirmed but actually this can be a normal Map-Reply (fallback to 9301, e.g., pubsub is not supported by the Map-Server) or a Negative Map-Reply. Apologies for the inconvenience. Cheers, Med De : Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> Envoyé : samedi 18 février 2023 08:18 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]> Cc : The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Objet : Re: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-pubsub-13: (with COMMENT) On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 10:35 PM <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > In Section 5: > > "If the Map-Server removes the subscription state, it SHOULD > notify the xTR by > sending a single Map-Notify with the same nonce but with Loc-Count > = 0 (and > Loc-AFI = 0), and ACT bits set to 5 "Drop/Auth-Failure"." > > Why is this only a SHOULD? [Med] This is an optimization. We are consuming up to 4 messages to cover the specific case where the xTR sent a Map-Notify-Ack but was lost in transmission, while 3 would be just OK when there is an issue in the Map-Server-to-xTR forwarding path. What we had initially in mind is to have a provision for a policy to disable this. I think you should include something that indicates why one might legitimately not do what the SHOULD says. Otherwise, I can do it either way and expect to interoperate, but I don't understand the choice I'm making. -MSK _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
