Subject: [midcom] Protocol eval: 2.2.9 RSIP - proposal to change score and text

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 17:04:55 -0500

Middlebox experts,

As I have said in a previous e-mail, RSIP can easily be extended to
preserve port number oddity when creating bindings. RSIP currently does
not guarantee preservation of port number oddity.

RSIP would add a new optional boolean parameter called portOddity to the
ASSIGN_REQUESTs. If specified as TRUE, the remote port number of the
binding created would have the same oddity as the local port. If not
specified (or specified as FALSE), the remote port's oddity is independent
of the loacl port's oddity, thus maintaining backward compatibility with
the current definition of RSIP.

RSIP is currently scored a P on this requirement when it should, in
my opinion, clearly be a P+.

I propose that the score of RSIP for this requirement be changed to P+,
and the text changed to:

     RSIP can be extended to preserve the port number oddity of a
     binding by including an optional boolean portOddity parameter
     on ASSIGN_REQUESTs. If specified as TRUE, the remote port number
     of the binding created would have the same oddity as the local port.
     If not specified (or specified as FALSE), the remote port's oddity
     is independent of the local port's oddity, thus maintaining
     backward compatibility with the current definition of RSIP.

Comments expected and welcome.

Jim

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 21:41:22 -0500

Cedric,

I, obviously, didn't get that same understanding from the P+ definition.
Quoting from the protocol evaluation draft:

     P+ = Partial Compliance+.  Fundamentally meets the requirement
          through the use of extensions (e.g. packages, additional
          parameters, etc).

That, while it suggests that packages (MIBs, etc.) are permitted, also
says additional parmaters, etc., are permitted to be used in extending
a protocol to give it a P+ score.

I don't think any of the extensions I've proposed violate either the
letter or the spirit of this definition.

Further, the definition of the P score it says:

     P = Partial Compliance.  Meets some aspect of the requirement,
          however, the necessary changes require more than an extension
          and/or are inconsistent with the design intent of the
          protocol.

The design intent of RSIP was clearly to support middleboxes. I'm not
sure the same can be said about the design intentions of the other
protocols. :-)

Jim

"Cedric Aoun" <[email-masked]> on 08/06/2002 11:30:10 AM

Sent by:  "Cedric Aoun" <[email-masked]>

To:   James Renkel/MW/US/3Com, midcom     <[email-masked]>
cc:
Subject:  RE: [midcom] Protocol eval: 2.2.9 RSIP - proposal to change score
       and text

I initially understood the P+ category as the protocol could be extended by
using
the defined extensibility mechanisms without changing the base protocol
messages.
This is main difference between P and P+.
Other protocols evaluated in this process have MIBs, PIBs, packages etc ...
to be extended
easily.
IMO RSIP fails to meet this requirement as you just stated that RSIP does
not guarantee
preservation of port number oddity; and it doesn't have easy extensibility
tools it requires
new messages or new parameters within the base protocol messages.It should
actually be an F.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 06 August 2002 00:05
To: midcom
Subject: [midcom] Protocol eval: 2.2.9 RSIP - proposal to change score
and text

Middlebox experts,

Jim

 - C.htm