Subject: [forces] Protocol extension comments

From: "Haleplidis Evangelos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:32:09 +0200

Greetings Jamal,

I have the following comments for the
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhs-forces-protoextenstion-02.

1. There is already a wg item with the same name.

 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-forces-protoextension-00>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-forces-protoextension-00

 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhs-forces-protoextenstion-02>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhs-forces-protoextenstion-02 (there is a
typo in this name, "extenstion") You updated the non-wg. These comments are
for the updated one.

2. Table-range:

I would suggest you add what happens when someone does a table-range
get/set/del but the component is NOT a table. 

Which error code should it return? Should we create a new one, e.g.
E_COMPONENT_NOT_A_TABLE?

3. Table-range:

Just a suggestion. Show the Table-Range-TLV. Something like the following:

+---------------------+---------------------+

|       Type          |       Length        |

+---------------------+---------------------+

|                Start Index                |

+---------------------+---------------------+

|                 End Index                 |

+---------------------+---------------------+

4. Extended Result TLV: 

This requires a necessary change to the FEPO.

Is it possible to include this change to the 1.1 required by the CEHA
document, in order not to do too many versions?

5. There are some typo's as well inside the document (e.g. "upto", or in
some bullet points you have half sentences starting with capital, the rest
with non-capital).

Regards,

Evangelos Haleplidis.

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:28:35 -0500

Greetings Evangelos,

> typo in this name, "extenstion") You updated the non-wg. These comments are

Brain fart on my side.
I received an email saying draft-jhs-forces-protoextenstion-02 was expiring.
So i updated it to match current consensus.
I should have ignored the expiry notice.
Since there is no rush - I will update draft-ietf-forces-protoextension-00
later. I will consider what i just published as more up to date.

> Which error code should it return? Should we create a new one, e.g.

Added.

> Just a suggestion. Show the Table-Range-TLV. Something like the following:

Ok.

> document, in order not to do too many versions?

I think you are reffering to the XXX at the end of section 4.
FEPO changes make sense - but there's an additional comment I made there:

"Alternatively, the backward compatibility
   can be made a configuration option (which helps reduce clutter on
   FEPO LFB given that it is expected that in the future it makes sense
   for implementations to support only extended Result TLVs).
"

It is getting annoying having to redo FEPO every time.

> some bullet points you have half sentences starting with capital, the rest

No rush - but if you can be more specific it would help me fix the text faster.

cheers,
jamal

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Evangelos Haleplidis.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> forces mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces
>