Re: DRAFT Montreal minutes - X#NodeArchitecture comments

[Dave Wysochanski <davidw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Koning wrote:
>  >>>>> "David" == David Wysochanski <davidw@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>  >> Each node which declares the key MUST be prepared to handle the
>  >> response of [RFC3720] compliant nodes that do not understand the
>  >> key ([RFC3720] states that compliant nodes MUST respond with
>  >> X#NodeArchitecture=NotUnderstood).  In addition, a node which
>  >> implements this key MUST NOT declare "NotUnderstood" as its value.
>  >>
>  David> Seems fine.
>
> Those are just the standard 3720 rules, right?  It seems confusing to
> restate them explicitly, because it creates the impression that this
> key uses rules that are different in some way from the usual rules.
> If you do want to state the rules explicitly here, you might include
> a comment to the effect that "The normal rules for key handling apply,
> which are ..."
Yes, the more I thought about it, I agree.  It just muddies the water
to explicity state things about how to handle "NotUnderstood", so I'm
going to strike that last sentence.


>  >> A node which receives the value "NotUnderstood" for this key
>  >> SHOULD discard the value. Regardless of whether the received value
>  >> is discarded, the key MUST be considered to have been declared.
>  >>
>
>  David> Isn't this last sentence in conflict with the RFC paragraph I
>  David> mention below?  Sending "NotUnderstood" in a key value is a
>  David> protocol error, so why would a node receiving it be forced to
>  David> consider the other node having declared it?
>
> I agree.  The spec says it's a protocol error, the rules for handling
> protocol errors are defined already -- don't mess with it.

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
Ips@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips