RE: A question regarding draft-itef-ccamp-lmp-01.txt

[Jonathan Lang <jplang@calient.net>]

Fugui,
  Sorry for the delayed response.  Upon review/discussion amongst the
authors, I believe you are correct.  My suggestion would be to remove the
CONFIG_ERROR code.

Thanks,
Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Fugui Wang
To: 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
Sent: 11/8/2001 12:09 PM
Subject: FW: A question regarding draft-itef-ccamp-lmp-01.txt

Hi,

I posted this message about a week ago. Could somebody
please give me a clarification about it?

Thanks a lot,
Fugui



-----Original Message-----
From: Fugui Wang 
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:09 PM
To: 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: A question regarding draft-itef-ccamp-lmp-01.txt


A question regarding draft-itef-ccamp-lmp-01.txt
In section 13.16 CONFIG_ERROR [page 60]: 

o    CONFIG_ERROR, C-Type = 1 
   
0                   1                   2                   3 
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
|                          ERROR CODE                           | 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
          
         The following bit-values are defined: 
         0x01 = Unacceptable non-negotiable CONFIG parameter 
         0x02 = Renegotiate CONFIG parameter 
         0x04 = Bad Received CCID 
 
Question: 
(1) In which situation should you have error code 
0x04 = Bad Received CCID? Since the Config message only 
bring LOCAL_CCID, the only case I can imagine is that when the 
LOCAL_ID in Config doesn't match the lmpRemoteCcId field of 
the receiving node. But in this case, shouldn't we just update the
lmpRemoteCcId field (learning remote CCId) instead of sending a 
ConfigNack with error code = 0x04?  
 
(2) For error code 0x01 and 0x02, the N bit in the Config object 
of ConfigNack already tells about which error it is (The previous 
draft use the N bit in HelloConfig TLV to handle this). 
Is it necessary to have an additional ERROR_CODE object in the
ConfigNack? I think the ERROR_CODE is redundant to the N bit 
in Config object.
 
Thanks,
Fugui