Subject: [pcp] missing error codes

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:44:03 +0100

I am trying here to collect all missing error codes
(BTW the text should be updated to specify which error code to use,
i.e., be more useful than 'failure' or 'error'):
 - 5.3 page 10: (fatal) 'unsupported option'
 - 5.3 page 11: (fatal) 'repeated option' (see bad format too)
 - related to options, IMHO we need something about illegal opcode/option
  combination and something about badly formatted options.
 - 6.2 page 14: (fatal) all kinds of badly formatted requests
  We have the choice between several codes, one code with a lot
  of subcodes (BTW we have a free 8 bit field before the code one) or
  something like the offset indication in IP header error.
  BTW as soon as the layout is no longer trivial the last proposal
  becomes the best one IMHO.
 - 7.1 page 15: (fatal) bad format (request too short for instance)
 - 7.1 page 15: (fatal) 'unsupported protocol'
 - 7.2 page 17: (transient) 'exceeded quota' (different from 4
  as this condition is specific to a client)
 - 7.2 page 17: as suggested something fatal for REMOTE_PEER
 - 7.4 page 18: we do NOT need a code for deletion of a not-existent
  mapping (the post condition, the target mapping does not exist,
  is the same if it existed or didn't exist before, so there is no
  reason to make the response different, and BTW the only thing one
  can do with this kind of errors is to ignore it)
 - 7.4 page 19: unable (or in fact unallowed) to delete is different.
  BTW this doesn't fit in the model as it is neither fatal or
  transient, of course because it depends on external conditions.
  IMHO there is an error in the text, not a need for another error code
  until it is fixed.
 - 7.4.2 page 20: we should either add an error (condition or code)
  for lifetime between 0 and the minimum or remove the minimum lifetime
  (I am in favor of the second as it is simpler).
 - 7.4.3 page 20: I identified a 'you have lost your state' error case
  (PS of http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/current/msg00175.html)
 - 7.5.3 page 24: (fatal) 'cannot honour external port'
 
Note we still have to do a choice for the 'bad format' class of errors
(which are different from 'unsupported').

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:34:19 -0500

Be careful here: no point identifying a code unless you know what the 
receiver should do with it. I'm working on the ANCP base protocol 
document just now, and that criticism came up. Working out reasonable 
actions took several hours of my time.

On 17/12/2010 9:44 AM, Francis Dupont wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
>
>