RE: DRAFT Montreal minutes - X#NodeArchitecture comments

When I read 3720, it is clear to me that the first
processing rule is about comprehending the key. 
Declarative vs. negotiated processing rules can only
follow comprehension - if an implementation does not
recognize a key, declarative vs. negotiated handling
is moot.  A proposer thus must always be prepared for
the eventuality of lack of comprehension by the other
side, unless the key is defined in 3720 itself.

But I now see that that's clearly not how you read it.
 I will add some text along the above lines in the
absence of objections.


Mallikarjun


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

> >>>>> "Mallikarjun" == Mallikarjun C
> <[email protected]> writes:
> 
>  Mallikarjun> Hi Paul, I am still not sure I see the
> "bug" in 3720.
>  Mallikarjun> The text you cite is immediately
> preceded by this
>  Mallikarjun> sentence in 3720:
> 
>  Mallikarjun> "However, the answer for a key not
> understood MUST be
>  Mallikarjun> key=NotUnderstood."
> 
>  Mallikarjun> This applies to *all* keys, negotiated
> or declarative.
>  Mallikarjun> The "as described here" text you cite
> is reinforcing
>  Mallikarjun> this universal applicability.
> 
> Consider the top of page 53.
> 
> For declarative keys, there IS no response.  An
> occurrence of a
> declarative key is always taken to be a declaration.
>  And declarations
> are not allowed to contain the value
> "NotUnderstood".
> 
> The sentence you quoted ("the answer for a key not
> understood..."
> implies that a not-understood key is assumed to be a
> proposal, not a
> declaration, which matches my point 1.
> 
> The issue is that the rule at the top of page 53 is
> incomplete,
> because it doesn't cover the case of a
> not-understood key.  For those,
> a reply may appear though it wasn't expected (the
> protocol says that
> there is no reply to declarations).  And that reply
> will have a
> NotUnderstood value, which isn't a legal
> declarer-value.
> 
>  Mallikarjun> Regarding your proposed #2, I am not
> sure a proposer
>  Mallikarjun> should ever "silently ignore" a a
> "NotUnderstood"
>  Mallikarjun> response.  A NotUnderstood response
> always has a
>  Mallikarjun> semantic requirement on the proposer:
> not to use
>  Mallikarjun> protocol behavior associated with the
> key within the
>  Mallikarjun> scope of the key (connection/session).
> 
> True for negotiations, but I don't see how
> declarative keys,
> especially optional ones, can have a semantic effect
> on the sender
> that depends on whether they are understood or not. 
> Certainly the
> X#NodeArchitecture key doesn't.  I'd argue that a
> key that has
> semantic effects at the sending end must necessarily
> be a negotiation
> key, not a declarative key, because declarations by
> definition can
> only affect actions taken by the recipient.
> 
>      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