RE: DRAFT Montreal minutes - X#NodeArchitecture comments

Hi Paul,

I am still not sure I see the "bug" in 3720.  The text
you cite is immediately preceded by this sentence in
3720:

"However, the answer for a key
not understood MUST be key=NotUnderstood."

This applies to *all* keys, negotiated or declarative.
 The "as described here" text you cite is reinforcing
this universal applicability.

And the verbiage two paras below: "All keys in this
document, except for the X extension formats,.....MUST
NOT be answered with
NotUnderstood" offers even more guidance for this
specific thread.

So I guess I do not see a problem.  I am really trying
not to add "clarifications" to RFC 3720, when 3720 is
unambiguous (which I think it is in this case).

Regarding your proposed #2, I am not sure a proposer
should ever "silently ignore" a a "NotUnderstood"
response.   A NotUnderstood response always has a
semantic requirement on the proposer: not to use
protocol behavior associated with the key within the
scope of the key (connection/session).

Regards.

Mallikarjun




--- Paul Koning <[email protected]> wrote:

> >>>>> "Mallikarjun" == Mallikarjun C
> <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>  Mallikarjun> Hi Ken, Can you please point me to RFC
> 3720 text that
>  Mallikarjun> says NotUnderstood is always an error?
> 
>  Mallikarjun> The closest I can find is in section
> 5.2, page 55:
> 
> Page 54, second paragraph:
> 
>    The constants "None", "Reject", "Irrelevant", and
> "NotUnderstood" are
>    reserved and MUST ONLY be used as described here.
>  Violation of this
>    rule is a protocol error (in particular the use
> of "Reject",
>    "Irrelevant", and "NotUnderstood" as proposed
> values).
> 
> "as described here" is as responses to negotiating
> keys.  The text
> already explicitly disallows their use as proposals.
>  
> 
> A declaration isn't exactly the same as a proposal,
> but it certainly
> isn't a reply to a proposal, so by the above text
> "NotUnderstood" is
> prohibited. 
> 
> The 3720 bug is this: an implementation that doesn't
> understand a key
> doesn't know whether that key is declarative or
> negotiated.  If it
> assumes the latter it would have to reply
> NotUnderstood.  If in fact
> it was a declarative key then by the current text
> that's a protocol
> violation. 
> 
> A good way to fix this is to add two rules:
> 
> 1. If a key is not understood, it is assumed to be a
> negotiation
>    key (and a NotUnderstood reply must be sent).
> 2. If a declarative key is sent, and a reply is
> received from the
>    other end with that key and a value of
> NotUnderstood, this is
>    a protocol violation only if the key is required
> to be implemented.
>    If it was not required (i.e., X# keys) then a
> NotUnderstood
>    reply must be silently ignored.
> 
> 	 paul
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
Ips mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ips